State-of-the-Art Review on Amorphous Carbon Nanotubes: Synthesis, Structure, and Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCompared to previous version of the draft, some important additions have been made. I would encourage the authors to cite even more recent works. The draft should also be carefully checked for grammar errors.
The review has been improved compared to previous submission.
There are quite a few deficiencies left behind:
The figures need a complete rework, they don’t share the same size, font etc. (compare Fig 1, 2 and 3 for instance)
Some words are inappropriate for the context: “core disappearing” (it’s not by magic)
Figure 6 should have explained (a)..(e) insets as text, not just importing the picture without this minimal input
Dense dangling bonds – line 211, what is the meaning of this?
Figure 14 shows just too much information, as taken from ref. [114].
There is a poor justification of aCNTs application in various fields, and perhaps some examples would have been more suitable to highlight their effectiveness.
All the comments of Reviewer 1 are well-founded, and indeed further tuning (and perhaps time) would be needed to transform this draft to a full review article.
Still, the topic is of interest and the references are contemporary. Therefore there is a merit in choosing this topic for a review paper, although it's not a very comprehensive one. The authors did not compare the aCNTs with the main forms of carbon available today; this would help motivating this review.
The future trends, as deduced from the cited literature, are also not apparent. As a review, this paper should include useful guidelines for researchers in the field to follow (which it does not).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Careful proofreading is recommended, there are still issues regarding the use of English language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsXiona Ren et al. present a (pseudo)-review on the aCNTs
Whilst the topic seems well motivated and timely, the manuscript in the presented form does not at all live up to the expectations on a helpful review. The way of presentation prefers quantity over quality and requires one or two more iterations and streamlining of the content to make - as the authors claim their rational is ("Unfortunately, aCNTs did not receive as much attention and research efforts as graphitic CNTs.") - to acquaint the scientific community with this interesting perspective.
I restrict my review here to deficiencies in the presentation of the artwork and some general remarks. I suggest the authors thorougly revise their manuscript and resubmit once it is within the quality range expected.
Abstract
line 10: underlining not clear
Introduction
line 25 ff:
As the authors claim aCNTs to be "distinctively different from their ordered counterparts", an introductory figure aon the different classes of CNTs and a clear table of their similarities and differences would be tremedously helpful if not inevitable to visualize this fact.
line 30, 36: Please remove the bulky qualifier "unique". Instead, please generate a table to show the properties in different categories of aCNTs, MWCNTs, SWCNTs at a glance, at best stating reference to suitable review literature or primary research.
line 44 ff: "Very few studies have ..."
If they are few, please name and reference them exactly.
line 63-73 ff, 74-78 ff
Statements in these paragraphs are not supported by citations, please add. Alternatively, clearly refer to Table 1.
line 83: Fig. 1 Please clear the image credit in the caption: if this is taken from Ref. 23, state "Reproduced with permission ...", if not "Figure created [adapted] by the authors according to Ref. 23"
line 91 Fig. 2 idem (image credit) [Ref. 38]
line 111 Fig. 3 idem (image credit) [Ref. 44]
line 130 Fig. 4 idem (image credit) [Ref. 56]
line 143 Fig. 5 idem (image credit) [Ref. 93]
line 169 Fig. 6 idem (image credit) [Ref. 90]
Please remove the greyish background as it may deterior the contrast in reproduction.
line 186 Fig. 7 idem (image credit) [Ref. 7]
Please form captions as follows (throughout all imaging micrographs)
Trasmission electron micrograpohs
line 188 Fig. 8 idem (image credit) [Ref. 102-103]
line 189 Fig. 9 idem (image credit) [Ref. 91, 84, 86, 89]
line 204 Fig. 10 idem (image credit) [Ref. 104]
Enhance caption: "Sketch of a crystallization model of aCNTs ..."
line 206 Fig. 11 idem (image credit) [Ref. 38, 40]
Enhance caption: "Scanning [transmission] electron micrograph [inset?] (a) and ... (b) of ... showing the microstructure of AaCNTs. "
Term "AaCNTs" requires explanation.
line 223 Fig. 12 idem (image credits)
Enhance caption: "Graphical scheme of the main application of ...",
Consider table rather than pie diagram and include the Ref.s
line 284 FIg 13 idem (image credits) [Ref. 116]
Enhance captions: "Scanning [transmission] electron micrographs [inset?] of ... "
line 287 FIg 14 idem (image credits) [Ref. 114]
Enhance caption: "Tramsmission electron micrographs ... Spectra ...
line 292 Fig 15 idem (image credits) [Ref. 115]
Enhance caption: "Principle sketch of ...
Explaination AMT not clear (should be in the caption text only if necessary and referred to in the figure)
line 328 Fig 16:
NZFO should be written in full here
line 329 ff:
Please remove bulky or blurring wording: "versatile", "unfortunately", "we believe"
The statement "aCNTs do not have the problem of agglomeration" remains not at all sufficiently supported by the findings in the text. Please remove or clearly write a paragraph on agglomeration in the main chapters.
#
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRen et al. reviewed the synthesis, structure, and applications of amorphous carbon nanotubes. In my opinion, this manuscript is of interest to researchers who are dealing with carbon-based materials for a variety of applications. The manuscript can be considered for possible publication after following a minor revision.
1. The authors should also discuss the limitations of amorphous carbon nanotubes considering different applications.
2. Energy storage application can be discussed with more depth analysis for more clarity to the readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsXianoa Ren et al. have put forward considerable efforts to render this piece suitable for publication, however, a certain amount of monita have not yet been addressed or not in suitable manner. Therefore, I have to urge for some major revisions.
Comment R2-1: Table 1
- is trivial in its present form.
- Please include more qualifiers (columns) for reported materials properties (e.g. exotubular and endotubular surface properties) and reported application examples. Such info is of most interest for readers
- I suggest to include the series aligned aCNTs (AaCNTs), coiled aCNTs, V-shaped aCNTs, and ribbon-like aCNTs as specified on line 135 in this table, this would be of great interest and ease for the interested reader
- double-walled CNTs (and other few-wall CNTs) have a appeared as separate materials class as well, please consider inclusion as well
- please bring the materials classes aCNTs (aligned, coiled, V-shaped, and ribbon-like), MWCNTs, DWCNTs, SWCNTs form a certain continuum or homologeous series of materials concepts. Please include.
- Chirality is present for SWCNTs and MWCNTs, however, not relevant for MWCNTs. => Add relevance as a qualifier and discuss.
- Column headline "Sidewall characteristics" does not match with the content written in the cells below. => Please coherently consider surface properties for SWCNTs, DWCNTs, MWCNTs
- please deliberately enhance the table headline
Comment R2-2: Figure 1
- Please bring the data in a corresponding layout, e.g. box graph, please consider a comparison of aCNTs with semiconducting, semimetallic and/or metallic SWCNTs
Comment R2-3: Figure 10 (ex 7):
- Please refer to (Transmission electron micrograph of ...)
Comment R2-4: Reference to reproduced graphical material is not coherently given in the present form in the manuscript. Please carefully study the journal's by-laws on this. If there is no special guidance, I suggest the following writing:
Figure <X>: <Caption text, e.g. "Scheme of [...]"> Reproduced from Ref. [nnn]. Copyright <YEAR>, <PUBLISHER>.
#
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments R2-1: Table 1
- "Please include more qualifiers (columns) for reported materials properties (e.g. exotubular and endotubular surface properties) and reported application examples."
=> Has not sufficiently be addressed, please address.
- "I suggest to include the series aligned aCNTs (AaCNTs), coiled aCNTs, V-shaped aCNTs, and ribbon-like aCNTs as specified on line 135 in this table, this would be of great interest and ease for the interested reader"
=> Has not sufficiently be addressed, please address.
- "Chirality is present for SWCNTs and MWCNTs, however, not relevant for
MWCNTs. => Add relevance as a qualifier and discuss.
=> Has not sufficiently be addressed, please address.
Comment R2-2: Figure 1
=> Caption is incomplete (does not explain panel c), please complete
=> For a professional "State-of-the-art-Review" all panel graphics must have similar shape (e.g. all appear as a box), please adapt
#
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsXiaona Ren et al. have - in their response letter - again claimed to have put considerable efforts to render the manuscript suitable for publication however these claims are reflected only in part in the uploaded manuscript. So I am afraid to impose another revision.
Comment 1: Table 1
Authors: "I have deleted the table 1, and wonder whether this is better?"
Response: I consider this answer an unfortunate presumption. In my previous review reports, I have given detailed advice how this table could helpfully add to the target of this topical article. I do not solicit the decision of the authors to remove the table but rather to elaborate it in the indicated direction at their discretion.
Comment 2: Chirality
Authors: "the properties of SWCNTs are affected by its chirality, namely, the graphene layer rolled up along different directions leading to SWCNTs with different chiral structures with different"
Response: The quoted term for the morphologies of CNTs as "the graphene layer rolled up along different directions" is (even though quoted) not correct. Please correct and elaborate this paragraph to DWCNTs, MWCNTs and - even aCNTs. Note that here exactly is the momentum in which this topical manuscript can gain its strength: to describe to what exact extent nWCNTs and aCNTs are similar and to what extent they differ.
Comment 3: Figure 3 "Caption is incomplete (does not explain panel c), please complete"
Authors: "Is completed."
Response: Monitum has _not_ been addressed, explaination of panel c) is still missing. Please complete.
#
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors describe the aCNTs from synthesis to applications in the current draft.
However, there are multiple language errors (see appropriate section), and further comments relate to how the reports are organized; tables like Table 1 makes no clear distinction between methods (there are no horizontal lines to delimit them), while the figures themselves look overly simplified to the point where the reader can ask himself if this is really an article or taken from a PhD student report.
Other observations add up to this; the authors don't seem to understand how a polymer is written, like poly(tetrafluoroethylene), see the symbol used in Figure 3.
The references cited also seem less than ideal.
The work has potential, but the draft seems rushed and cannot undergo peer review in its current form, at least in my opinion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are multiple errors even from the beginning; phrases without verb, others without meaning.
Essentially, establishing safe and effective protocols for handling product yields[15]
Most research has focused on single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), possess of cylindrical graphene sheets.
reported on amorphous carbon nanotubes (aCNTs), achieving high activity, selectivity, straight tubular structures and economical.
Another advantage of aCNTs, possesses high surface area, tunable porosity makes them attractive for capacitors and Li-ion batteries
Pioneer studies on investigation of pristine aCNTs and aCNs was undertaken
The examples above come only from Introduction section, errors are found throughout the manuscript and these need to be checked by a native speaker, if proofreading is not enough to correct grammar.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the comments and I am very appreciated with them, I have revised the article thoroughly. The responses are shown in the cover-letter and the revised version of article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary: The authors presented a review on the topic of amorphous carbon nanotubes (aCNTs). The scope of the review is defined to encompass the synthesis, structural characterization, and applications of aCNTs. While the topic is of some relevance, this reviewer is of the opinion that the quality of the manuscript does not merit publication in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Please refer to the reasons below.
Issues within the manuscript:
• The use of English language is not upto standard and it is difficult to scientifically comprehend the content presented in this manuscript.
• The technical content in most parts is vague. For example: Page 1, Line 41 states that CNTs face challenges such as “precise control over properties, consumption of gas, and scalable production at low cost.” Which properties are being referred to here? What does consumption of gas even mean? While there are references cited, it is recommended that the authors provide some context so that the reader can comprehend what is being defined and described in the text. There are numerous such examples throughout the entire manuscript.
• There is no organization of the content in most paragraphs. For example, Page 12, Lines 213-223 is an introductory paragraph to the applications of aCNTs. Within it, there are sentences such as “Moreover, owing to these defects, 216 aCNTs have excellent reversible capacity and rate capacity[30].” There is no prior mention of Li-ion batteries within the paragraph and therefore to find a sentence such as this makes no sense. Because of this organizational issue, a reader with no background in batteries will never comprehend this sentence.
• There are multiple formatting issues, for example, in Table 1, it is impossible to associate the method with raw materials since there is no demarcation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease refer to the reviewer comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the comments and I am very appreciated with them, I have revised the article thoroughly and hoping to meet the requirements of IJMS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsConsidering this is a second submission of the manuscript, one would expect that all comments to be correctly addresses. Sadly, they are not.
While the cited references could sustain an impactful review, the current draft lacks from both a scientific, and language perspective, which makes it impossible for me to recommend its publication.
However, the authors are encouraged to rethink the whole manuscript, redraw the figures and make them more meaningful (not spreading the same simple idea over multiple figures), check again their basic knowledge of Chemistry and correct all instances where errors are found. If implemented correctly, the manuscript could be reconsidered in the future.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe errors reported initially are still there, at least many of them. I wonder how a basic proofreading of the draft did not point out these errors, or why the authors decided to ignore them.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNotes:
The written English is still not up to standard, and the scientific value of this paper is unfortunately minimal. This reviewer does not believe that the article warrants publication. Please see some examples Here are some comments:
Comment 1.
Line 31, Page 1: “Remarkably, a well-defined interface mechanism via robust covalent bond formation of sp2 and sp3 hybridized carbon atoms, where sp2 carbon atoms share their bonding to form graphitic structures (hexagonal, honeycomb pattern), and sp3 carbon atoms result in a tetrahedral configuration, bestows diamond-like, three-dimensional 34 structure[10,11].”
This single sentence is 5 lines long. It is incredibly difficult to comprehend such sentences. Also, it is unclear why are adjectives such as remarkable used – there is nothing following such adjectives that merit their use.
Comment 2.
Line 45, Page 1: “Very few recent studies have reported on amorphous carbon nanotubes (aCNTs), which are high activity, selectivity, straight tubular structures and economical.”
What is high activity? What is the selectivity towards? The sentence is very vague.
Comment 3.
Line 70, Page 2: “Moreover, according to the mechanism, template just a tool, the mechanism of aCNTs generation is always combined with CVD or catalysis pyrolysis. Similar to CVD or arc discharge, they always require catalysts to obtain aCNTs.”
What does this sentence mean? Who/what does “they” refer to in the phrase “they always require catalysts to obtain aCNTs”?
Comment 4.
Figures are not adding any value to the manuscript.
Comment 5.
The paragraph in Line 95, Page 6 is a regurgitation of the information in Table 1.
There are plenty of minor mistakes throughout, it is impossible to review this manuscript with detail.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please see comments above.
