Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written in simple and understandable style. The manuscript have clear description of the steps to fabricate electrodes and characteristics of them.

The only thing that can be recommended is to conduct a more complete analysis of the literature on the manufacture of analogue (metal) electrodes [ACS Nano 12 (2018) 2027; Lab Chip 20 (2020) 469; Small 17 (2021) 2006612]. Try to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of making such objects. For example, flexible GaInSn electrodes have already been used and reported by [Adv. Funct. Mat. 22 (2012) 625], GaIn electrodes in [Appl. Phys. Let. 103 (2013) 064101] New superelastic liquid-metal fibre mats using EGaIn on an SBS substrate are reported recently by [Nature Materials 20 (2021) 859]. It can give to manuscript some logical conclusion.

From the other case, all figures should have remarks to referenses which they use.

In any case, manuscript it self look very professional and sutable for publication in Journal like Coatings.

My general opinion about manuscript ID: coatings-1636378: possible to publish as a article.

Author Response

Apr. 2th, 2022

Dear Editor,

First, we would like to express our thanks to the Reviewers for their instructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ‘Prospects and challenges of flexible stretchable electrodes’ (coatings-1531510). We have studied the comments carefully, and then carefully revised the whole manuscript. The revisions/explanation corresponding to comment are shown in the attachment.

Yours Sincerely,

Qingwei Liao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript requires some editing before it can be considered for publication. At this stage, I recommend “minor revision”. My comments are listed below:

• Section 2, Line 63
• “Functional regulation”…what does it mean?? Rephrase this
• “Concept, Performance, and Functional Regulation”….. Overall, this section needs to be better organized and renumbered accordingly. For instance, sub-section Concept can be renumbered as 2.1, Performance as 2.2 and so on. Alternatively, remove sub-sections for section 2 altogether.
• Line 297: “other base electrode materials”. Rephrase this.
• Line 467: “chemical/physical deposition”. Split this into 2 as “CVD/PVD” and “electrochemical deposition” and revise everything accordingly.
• Line 530: rewrite as “summary and future prospect”.

Author Response

Apr. 2th, 2022

Dear Editor,

First, we would like to express our thanks to the Reviewers for their instructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ‘Prospects and challenges of flexible stretchable electrodes’ (coatings-1531510). We have studied the comments carefully, and then carefully revised the whole manuscript. The revisions/explanation corresponding to comment are shown in the attachment.

Yours Sincerely,

Qingwei Liao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a review paper about technologies for Flexible Stretchable Electronics. It combines more than 144 recent reference sources which is large enough for such overview.

I have two concerns about the paper content, first is about the usage of word electrode, second is about the missing numerical data in such scientific work.

Electrode is a broad term. There must be defined a target application of your review. Wires, sensors, supercapacitors, batteries, it is not possible to compare all types of electrodes, they are uncomparable from a bird eye view. Therefore, I recommend a title change as “Prospects and Challenges of Flexible Stretchable materials for Electronics”. This change is just for the title, electrodes could left in the main text.

Limited numerical data. Generally, you have missed the numerical data from your references. Electrical conductivity is the main parameter, extract conductivities from each reference and compare them.

Line 109 – missing surface symbol. Not clear what “sq” is.

Table 2 shows materials for supercapacitors which have a high specific surface but are not conductive. Electrodes are conductive, numerical data about conductivity is needed in the paper e.g. from [51].

3D printing must be included as an additive technology for flexible electronics. Recent works on Electrically Conductive Composites may be included on the subject as a new small sub-chapter.

Table with different manufacturing technologies could be arranged and presented.

Wear and aging of flexible materials needs a deeper discussion and estimation.

Author Response

Apr. 2th, 2022

Dear Editor,

First, we would like to express our thanks to the Reviewers for their instructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ‘Prospects and challenges of flexible stretchable electrodes’ (coatings-1531510). We have studied the comments carefully, and then carefully revised the whole manuscript. The revisions/explanation corresponding to comment are shown in the attachment.

Yours Sincerely,

Qingwei Liao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

to be printed