Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the reply addresses point by point all the concerns of the readers' comments in a very polite and complete way. Therefore, being this a reply to the former comments paper, I would recommend publishing it as it is. Also, I find very appropriate the concluding remarks of the author.

Author Response

I am very grateful to Reviewer 1 for the high appreciation of my systematic and polite (as much as possible) approach to addressing the issues disturbing the Readers, as well as finding my concluding remarks appropriate. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for this Reviewer's recommendation to publish my Response unchanged.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author of (Nanomaterials 2021, 11 (9), 2271), has fully responded to the Comment article of Silvio Heinschke and Jörg J. Schneider. The two sides reached some consensus on some scientific issues, which promoted the progress of the research direction of this discipline to a certain extent. I appreciate this reply very much.

In this Reply article, the author retorts on a number of points, and for good reasons. With both sides holding their own opinions, I feel it is necessary to publish their Comment and Reply at the same time. This will give scientists more realistic and challenging information when they read and refer to the review paper.

Author Response

I highly appreciate the positive feedback from Reviewer 2 about my Response, especially regarding the sense and weight of the scientific arguments. It is particularly pleasant that Reviewer 2 sees the potential of our exchange of views to promote the progress in this research direction, and that Reviewer 2 also agreed to sign the open review report, thus contributing to the transparency of the scientific discussion. I will try my best to continue to contribute to this field, guided by the best of intentions.