Review Reports
- Fengsong Qian1,†,
- Jun Deng1,† and
- Xiaochen Ma1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Alexander Alexandrovich Lebedev Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
On the whole, the article is quite original and fits the content of the journal.I have some doubts about the correct choice of name and terminology.
The authors talk about vertical graphene; however, the material they obtain is
highly defective and does not at all look like a two-dimensional material;
is not graphene in any way and does not exhibit its characteristic properties.
Apparently, these films are amorphous carbon. In my opinion, the authors should
replace “vertical graphene” with “amorphous carbon” everywhere in the text
of the article and the title, after which the article can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors reported a new approach to prepare patterned vertical graphene by utilizing thermal stress mismatch. The work is of value and suits the journal. My main concern is, the scale of PVG growth is rather small, does the FEM model apply at this scale? A verfication/validation of model is required. After model validation, the mechanism would be sound.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors convinced me that the term "vertical graphene"had previously been used and applied
to similar materials as investigated in this article.
But I remained in my opinion that this is an unfortunate term.
Reading it, people might think
that we are talking about the study of two-dimensional material,
but this is not so. The article can be published in its current form.