Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachement

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Detailed responses are provided below, and corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the resubmitted document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Abstract is comprehensive but overly long. It should be shortened, focusing on the main purpose, the novelty of the review, and its most relevant conclusions. A final sentence explicitly stating what this paper uniquely contributes, such as bridging material science and thermal system design through AI-assisted innovation, would improve impact.

In the Introduction, the motivation for advanced LTMS is sound, yet the discussion would benefit from updated references on recent battery safety incidents or EV thermal runaway cases. Including one or two citations from 2024–2025 would better justify the urgency of developing improved thermal control technologies.

The long description of Figure 1 is repetitive and difficult to follow. It should be rewritten in concise, technical language, avoiding narration-style phrases like “Battery work, the internal chemical reaction or electrical energy loss heat production…”. 

Section 2.1 contains a good overview of thermal control principles, but several concepts are repeated. The section would be stronger if supported by a schematic or a simple heat balance equation (Qgen = Qcond + Qconv + Qrad). Quantitative description would make the discussion more rigorous.

In Table 1, units are inconsistently formatted (e.g., “W/(m・K)” should be written as “W m⁻¹ K⁻¹”). Each dataset should have a citation or source, otherwise the table reads as empirical.

In Section 3.2, the classification of cooling technologies is informative but could be made more compact. Several categories overlap; for example, “spray cooling,” “submerged cooling,” and “direct contact cooling” could be grouped logically. This would enhance readability without losing information.

Table 3 presents valuable comparative data but lacks citations. Each line of numerical information (maximum temperature, ΔT, energy consumption, efficiency) should indicate the literature source, even in summary form (e.g., “adapted from [X et al., 2024]”).

The description of liquid-cooled plates (Section 4.1.1) is clear but excessively long. It lists many geometrical configurations without critically comparing their performance. The authors should highlight which flow path geometry provides the best compromise between ΔT reduction and energy cost, rather than only enumerating options. Adding a concise quantitative comparison.

In Section 4.2, the distinction between submerged and non-submerged cooling is useful, but the safety issues associated with dielectric breakdown or fluid degradation need further elaboration. One or two sentences discussing failure mechanisms of dielectric coolants under high voltage would make the section more complete.

The simulation section (5.1–5.2) lacks sufficient technical depth. The discussion is too general and should include at least one representative heat transfer equation (Fourier’s law with convective boundary term) or a short example of model assumptions. Moreover, references to recent works on multiphysics or machine-learning-based thermal modeling (2023–2025) would strengthen the credibility of this part.

Figures 10–12 seem to have inconsistent numbering, there are two “Figure 10” captions. The figure order should be checked and renumbered sequentially. Some captions also repeat information from the main text and could be shortened.

In the Summary section (6.1), the conclusions are too general and descriptive. The authors should add a critical synthesis that compares cooling strategies in terms of scalability, cost, and environmental impact. This would show evaluative judgment rather than simple recapitulation.

The Prospects section (6.2) is one of the most promising parts of the paper, but it should cite concrete examples of recent advances in smart materials and AI-driven material design for thermal management. For instance, a reference to AI-assisted optimization of composite materials for energy storage or electronics would substantiate the claims. A new reference could be introduced, for example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56227-9 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Detailed responses are provided below, and corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the resubmitted document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments.