Hybrid Perovskites and 2D Materials in Optoelectronic and Photocatalytic Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have reported the review on hybrid perovskites and 2D materials in optoelectronic and photocatalytic applications. In particular, the author reviewed the progress on the heterostructure of halide perovskites with 2D materials for various optoelectronic applications, including synthesis techniques. In addition, the manuscript talks about the challenges faced by perovskite for quality, stable, and eco-friendly optoelectronic phosphors. In general, this is an interesting collection and outlook in this field of research. The manuscript is well written. I recommend its publication in Crystals after improving the following feedback.

1.      The authors are suggested to make the font size in each figure identical and readable.

2.      The authors are suggested to write a full word rather than an abbreviation. For example, “apt” in Conclusions and Perspectives.

3.      The authors are suggested to follow some important halide perovskites papers: Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, 2208336, J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, 123, 2, 1406–1412;

 

4.      Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, there are some typos or jumbled sentences that should be corrected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Recommend minor edit

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our review paper. I have carefully addressed each of the points you raised and believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the work.

1. The font size in each figure has been adjusted to be identical and readable.
2. Thanks for this reminder. Only necessary abbreviation is used in this paper.
3. Those suggested articles have been cited in the paper.
4. Typos and jumbled sentences have been corrected.

Thank you again for your dedication to the peer review process and for helping enhance the quality of my work. I appreciate the expertise and time you have dedicated to this review.

Warm regards,

Benxuan

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well written and of great interest for the community working on perovskite. Here is a list of minor corrections to make:

- The title of paragraph 3 contains a typo error

- A paragraph is missing on the application of perovskite itself as 2D additive within 3D perovskite and its potential for photovoltaics-> see for instance: https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145254 using  a 2d/3D mixed perovskite :  (5-AVA)_xMA_1−xPbI₃

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this review, the authors reported “Hybrid perovskites and 2D materials in optoelectronic and photocatalytic applications.” The authors explained the synthesis methods and various applications of perovskite based heterostructures. The review is interesting, but there are some major drawbacks in the work organization. In my opinion, the review cannot be accepted for publication in crystals. The evaluation could be reopened if the major concerns below were resolved.

1.     The literature cited in the introduction section seems to not have enough influence, please improve this.

2.     As a review paper, the authors should add more comments and summaries about this field, rather than only listing the related literatures. More comments like the current state of research, the challenge in this field, as well as critical analysis and comparison with the published works should be made. Here should be a more critical discussion based on the author’s own thoughts.

3.     Authors are encouraged to incorporate a table in section 2 (fabrication techniques) by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of various techniques.

4.     Most of the figures are from other publications, it would be great if the authors created more images by themselves.

5.     In general, it would be great if brief conclusions were provided after each section.

6.     In Section 3 and 4, the authors discussed photodetector and solar cell applications of various heterostructures. It seems good. It would be better if the same kind of analysis were carried out in section 5.

7.     The would be better to discuss the photocatalytic mechanism.

8. The conclusion should be clearer. The main challenges as well as future directions should be mentioned in more detail.

 

9.     The authors are advised to draw the figures on their own.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the comments properly, I can recommend this manuscript for publication in its present form.