Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this review is interesting. However, the authors need to improve the quality of presentation, organization and English writing. I have several concerns and authors must address these points. 

i. The Abstract is fine and the readers can easily understand your contributions.

ii. The authors should add a separate section devotes to Open Research Issues. Challenges regarding the use of these organic/inorganic luminescent materials.

iii. There is a complete lack of Tables in this review. The authors must add a comparative Table and compare this study with existing reviews or surveys.

iv. Section 2 is well discussed and supported with reference literature.

v. The quality of figures is fine, properly labelled and sufficient information is provided.

vi. I have noticed several typographical and grammatical issues. The authors must proofread carefully. 

vii. The Concluding remarks section should be more precise.

viii. Some references are outdated. The authors must add maximum references from latest studies reported between 2020-2023. 

ix. It will be really interesting if you can add some application scenarios or use cases. 

Dear Editor,

The English writing of this article needs significant improvement as there are several typographical and grammatical errors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is devoted to the current topic of the development of luminescent materials for optical wireless communication systems. The authors analyzed a large number of modern sources of information. The conclusions made by the authors are reasonable.

Notes on the text of the Manuscript:

1. Figure 1 should be placed immediately after the first mention, that is, after line 115.

2. I consider it advisable to divide Figure 1 into two Figures: (a) and (b-d).

3. Line 189: quoting [49-53] needs to be considered in more detail.

4. Why define VLC and re-enter the abbreviation if it is already done in the Introduction?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This short review gives an introduction abut luminescent materials for VLC, a new application of luminescent materials developed in the past decades. In the manuscript, there are much descriptions about luminescent materials, less about how to apply these materials in the VLC system. In fact, frequency transfer is a simple process in the field of luminescent materials, readers would more interest about the latter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Editor and Authors:

I have carefully read the review by Martínez and colleagues titled “Progress of organic/inorganic luminescent materials for optical wireless communication systems”. In this manuscript, the authors described the state-of-the-art materials used as luminophores for Visible Light Communications (VLC). In particular, they have focused on Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs), small organic molecules, polymers, BODIPYs, and, finally, perovskite nanocrystals.

This review covers an interesting topic and could be useful for other researchers approaching this research area. Thus, it would merit publication in Photonics, but first the authors should solve some issues with the content and presentation.

Comment 1: In general, the English style is understandable but it should be importantly revisited, as there are quite a few typos and mistakes. For example, in line 29 “imposed” would make more sense than “produced”. Or, in line 31 it should be “Among”, not “Into”. But there are many more. Perhaps the authors could use the amazing capabilities of ChatGPT for that task, if the editor permits.

Comment 2: In lines 38 and 71 the authors write “low[er] wavelengths”, but it should be “large[r] wavelengths”, as there is a down-conversion involved in the described experiments.

Comment 3: Section 2.4 deals with OLEDs and BODIPYs, and includes a couple of long paragraphs on OLEDs. But OLEDs were already covered in sections 2.2 and 2.3. This structure is quite confusing, as it seems that SMOLEDs (section 2.2) and PLEDs (section 2.3) are different to OLEDs, while they are all organic LEDs. The authors should give a second though on how to structure the different sections on organic materials.

Comment 4: In line 197, the authors state the following: “[…] with their OLEDs based on inorganic system […]”. What do they mean by inorganic OLED? Isn’t that a conventional LED?

Comment 5: In lines 214-215 the authors describe again what VLC is as if it was the first time that is mentioned in the text. Please, change as necessary.

Comment 6: I have a concern about the number of references that have been included, which makes the usefulness of this review doubtful. In section 2.1, for example, they only cite 4 different works on MOFs in VLC applications. Is that all? For example, I would understand that the authors include many more references for others to consult, but only develop the results of 4 relevant works. But including just 4 references is not helpful for other researchers. The same goes for sections 2.2 and 2.3. In this case, refs. [20] and [26] are a review and a chapter on organic VLC technologies, and I understand that they will have many more references. The authors could have included in their text a few more references and a comment on the possibility of finding more literature in refs. [20] and [26], for example. The same goes for section 2.5, where there are only 3 references (!). These references ([8], [9], and [81]) have been cited, respectively, 196, 26, and 12 times, meaning that there are many more references dealing with VLCs in perovskite nanocrystals than the ones highlighted in this review. Thus, I would ask the authors to include more references, and to make clear why the works that are describing in more detail are more relevant than the rest.

In general, the English style is understandable but it should be importantly revisited, as it is not a proper English and there are quite a few typos and mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your efforts. You have addressed all of my concerns. Thus, I recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have solved all the queries and comments posed by me and the rest of the reviewers. I can now recommend publication as it is.