Comprehensive Analysis of Fullerene- and Non-Fullerene-Based Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells Using Numerical Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Comprehensive Analysis on Fullerene and Non-Fullerene Based Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells, by Using Numerical Simulation"  Overall, the manuscript presents valuable insights into the use of 2D materials as hole transport layers in organic photovoltaic devices. I recommend the publication of the manuscript given below. With the suggested revisions, I believe the paper can make a significant contribution to the field. Here are my detailed comments and suggestions for the authors:

1-      I recommend deleting the “To the best of our knowledge, no computational studies have been found..” part. Instead, focus on the main aim of the study

2-      The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors throughout. I recommend check it again and do corrections  to improve readability and clarity. For example, "a renewable energy resources are being developed which is the need of the day" should be corrected to "renewable energy resources are being developed, which are essential."

3-       The literature review is comprehensive but somewhat disorganized. It would benefit from being divided into clear subsections. 

4-      The review mentions various studies, but the transitions between different studies are not suitable. Adding connecting sentences to explain how each study relates to the next would improve readability.

5-      The discussion on the influence of interface defects and temperature on device performance is insightful. I recommend it be expanded to include more detailed analysis and comparison with existing literature.

6-      The equations used in the manuscript should be cited

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editor

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Comprehensive Analysis on Fullerene and Non-Fullerene Based Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells, by Using Numerical Simulation"  Overall, the manuscript presents valuable insights into the use of 2D materials as hole transport layers in organic photovoltaic devices. I recommend the publication of the manuscript given below. With the suggested revisions, I believe the paper can make a significant contribution to the field. Here are my detailed comments and suggestions for the authors:

1-      I recommend deleting the “To the best of our knowledge, no computational studies have been found..” part. Instead, focus on the main aim of the study

2-      The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors throughout. I recommend check it again and do corrections  to improve readability and clarity. For example, "a renewable energy resources are being developed which is the need of the day" should be corrected to "renewable energy resources are being developed, which are essential."

3-       The literature review is comprehensive but somewhat disorganized. It would benefit from being divided into clear subsections. 

4-      The review mentions various studies, but the transitions between different studies are not suitable. Adding connecting sentences to explain how each study relates to the next would improve readability.

5-      The discussion on the influence of interface defects and temperature on device performance is insightful. I recommend it be expanded to include more detailed analysis and comparison with existing literature.

6-      The equations used in the manuscript should be cited

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. (pdf file)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors used 2D molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) as a hole transport layer (HTL) material for fullerene (FA) and non-fullerene (NFA) based organic photovoltaic (OPV) devices. The impact of thickness, optimization of interface engineering and the effect of high temperature analysis on the output characteristics was studied. It can be accepted after minor revision.

1. The resolution of the figures are too low and can’t be seen clearly. Please revise the figures.

2. The references have two numbers, please delect one.

3. In the introduction part, the use of 2D materials in other fields should be induced, and the following studies can be refered, such as Inorg. Chem. 2023, 62, 1752−1761;   Adv. Func. Mater. 2018, 28, 1800136.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.- (pdf file)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written, but some improvements are needed. The following improvements could be suggested:

1.organization of the study has to be presented at the end of the Introduction section. 

2. the originality of the paper has to be stressed and comparison with other similar research articles published by different authors has to be discussed.

3.The quality and resolution of the Figures 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 has to be improved.

4.industrial implementation of the method presented by the authors has to be shortly discussed.

After the introduction of these improvements the manuscript could be published.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English would be required.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." (pdf file)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript could be published now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English is required.