Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive review of polyoxometalates (POMs) as emerging active materials for memristive and neuromorphic devices. It covers comprehensively analysis in this work electrically and materially. Overall, the manuscript is ambitious and provides an extensive compilation of literature. The topic is timely and relevant to researchers working on molecular electronics and neuromorphic hardware.

However, significant issues related to organization, clarity, redundancy, and depth of critical analysis must be addressed before acceptance.

Major Comments:

(1) Manuscript is overly long and unfocused

The current version contains excessive background information and redundant explanations. Key messages are diluted. Please condense the manuscript by ~25–30% and highlight the unique role of POMs more clearly.

(2) Organization needs improvement The logical flow is fragmented. Suggest restructuring into clearer sections (e.g., POM fundamentals → mechanisms → device metrics → challenges).

(3) Lack of critical comparison The review summarizes studies but provides limited insight or evaluation. Please add comparisons between POM-based devices and traditional oxide RRAM/PCM/MRAM/ferroelectric memristors, including advantages and limitations (benchmark performance comparision would be helpful)

(4) Language quality requires major editing There are numerous grammatical errors, typos, and inconsistent terminology. A thorough professional English edit is necessary.

(5) Please add the reliability topic in this work and extend that from reliability (endurance/retention) to the real world performance (multilevel, short-term memory or long-term memory, self-training or classification/un-classification process, PIM, neuromorphic computing etc...) on the various computing applications and challenge. 

Due to the above comments, with improved structure, clearer focus, and language polishing, the manuscript has the potential to be a valuable review for the field.

 

Author Response

Thank you for sending us reviewers’ reports on our manuscript “Analyzing the potential of polyoxometalates (POMs) as memristors and neuromorphic devices based on electronic properties” (new title: "Polyoxometalates (POMs) Memristors/Neuromorphic Devices: From Structure Engineering to Material and Function Integration",)co-authored by Jufang Hu, Shengzhang Xu,and Yanfang Meng. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and you for your editorial efforts, which have helped to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

To clearly show all revisions, we have marked text modifications in the manuscript as follows: changed content is highlighted in red, newly added text is in blue, and deleted text is retained with a strikethrough. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below in blue. We hope the revised manuscript meets the high standard of nanomaterials-4187592.

We looked forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Yanfang Meng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the potential of POM as memristive and neuromorphic devices. The topic is timely and potentially suitable for Nanomaterials; however, in its current form the article requires major revision because the central technical narrative is not yet sufficiently clear, the organization mixes broad background with POM-specific insights without a consistent taxonomy, and the presentation quality (language, figures, and references) is below the journal standard.

A concise background section can be added to define standard mechanisms and metrics, followed by a POM-focused core organized by a stable taxonomy (e.g., filamentary vs interfacial vs molecular-redox switching; two-terminal vs three-terminal; POM–organic frameworks vs POM–carbon composites). Each subsection can end with a short takeaway highlighting what is specific to POMs.

The paper needs stronger quantitative synthesis rather than primarily descriptive discussion. For example, the author can add a table summarizing representative POM devices with comparable metrics (stack/material, switching type, Vset/Vreset, ON/OFF ratio, endurance, retention, speed, energy, multilevel behavior, variability, and demonstrated neuromorphic functions). Another table that can be added is to map key POM properties (redox potentials, counter-cations, functionalization, processing) to observed device behavior, which would substantially improve clarity and usefulness.

Several mechanistic sections can include more precise, better-supported explanations. For example, when DFT/band-structure arguments are used, can the author state what was computed, what assumptions were made, and how the results link to the experimentally observed switching path?

Many of the figures have poor quality image, inconsistent label index, and many texts are too small to read.

In addition, there are many typos in the paper. Please proofread more carefully and hire a professional editor if needed. For example,

In abstract, “relationships between the properties of the memeristor device and the foundational structure” should be “memristor”.

In section 2.1, “the array structure to achieve high-performance, high density neural networks has become the research hotpot” should be “hotspot”.

In section 2.2, “Two-terminal insular-to-metal transition (IMT)-based memritors generally show current-controlled negative differential” should be “insulator” and “memristors”.

Author Response

Thank you for sending us reviewers’ reports on our manuscript “Analyzing the potential of polyoxometalates (POMs) as memristors and neuromorphic devices based on electronic properties” (new title: "Polyoxometalates (POMs) Memristors/Neuromorphic Devices: From Structure Engineering to Material and Function Integration",)co-authored by Jufang Hu, Shengzhang Xu,and Yanfang Meng. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and you for your editorial efforts, which have helped to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

To clearly show all revisions, we have marked text modifications in the manuscript as follows: changed content is highlighted in red, newly added text is in blue, and deleted text is retained with a strikethrough. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below in blue. We hope the revised manuscript meets the high standard of nanomaterials-4187592.

We looked forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Yanfang Meng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are many types of memristors, maybe too much, so the dedication of a review to a  single type of memristor based on   polyoxometalates (POMs)  is superfluous.

The manuscript is focussed  on POMs as materials and much less on their electrical properties. No comparison is made with other types of memristors, no clear application in neuromorphic hardware.

The manuscript must be entirely rewritten because now is not a review as authors have intended and is just a series of results copy-pasted from the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for sending us reviewers’ reports on our manuscript “Analyzing the potential of polyoxometalates (POMs) as memristors and neuromorphic devices based on electronic properties” (new title: "Polyoxometalates (POMs) Memristors/Neuromorphic Devices: From Structure Engineering to Material and Function Integration",)co-authored by Jufang Hu, Shengzhang Xu,and Yanfang Meng. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and you for your editorial efforts, which have helped to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

To clearly show all revisions, we have marked text modifications in the manuscript as follows: changed content is highlighted in red, newly added text is in blue, and deleted text is retained with a strikethrough. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below in blue. We hope the revised manuscript meets the high standard of nanomaterials-4187592.

We looked forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Yanfang Meng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revision. The paper looks better, but there are still many typos and many figures are blur and font are too small to read.

For example, in Fig.3 many subplot description in caption are missing, font size too small for x/y label, legend, etc. Same for Fig. 1,2,4,6,8

In title, "Nneuromorphic" should be "Neuromorphic"?

In section 2, "followed by rapid quencing" should be "quenching"?

In section 3, "The resistive switching mechanism regarding electrochemical metallization and mechanismin of " should be "mechanism"?

Please hire professional editor if needed.

Author Response

 

Reviewer #2:

Summary Comment: Recommendation: Minor Revision: suitable for publication after changes

 

Comments: Thanks for the revision. The paper looks better, but there are still many typos and many figures are blur and font are too small to read.

 

Question 1: For example, in Fig.3 many subplot description in caption are missing, font size too small for x/y label, legend, etc. Same for Fig. 1,2,4,6,8

 

Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful comments. To improve clarity, we have removed most of the original captions from the figures you mentioned, re-inserted text boxes, and increased the font size.

 

Question 2: In title, "Nneuromorphic" should be "Neuromorphic"?

Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful comments.

Modification to the manuscript:

“Nneuromorphic” has been changed into “Neuromorphic”.

 

Question 3: In section 2, "followed by rapid quencing" should be "quenching"?

Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful comments. We have revised.

Modification to the manuscript:

“followed by rapid quencing” has been changed into “followed by rapid quenching”.

 

Question 4: In section 3, "The resistive switching mechanism regarding electrochemical metallization and mechanismin of " should be "mechanism"?

Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful comments.

Modification to the manuscript:

“mechanismin” has been changed into “mechanism”.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. Upon further review, we have identified a few minor issues that we have now addressed.“Nneuromorphic” has been changed into “Neuromorphic”.

“followed by rapid quencing” has been changed into “followed by rapid quenching”.

 In section 3, “mechanismin” has been changed into “mechanism”.