Advances in Wearable Chemosensors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reviewed the latest research progresses on wearable chemosensors and it can be published providing the ff comments are are considered. 

1. Extensive English correction is needed, eg. Pg1, L41 - needs rephrasing [his], page 2: L67- ''[We have already]'', etc
2. page 2: L72- ''Technical and Science background'' not clear, may be need to be rephrased 
3. As a review, Figures from the references cited need to be at least presented for some research results 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled Advances in Wearable Chemosensors submitted by the group of Authors tries to summarize recent advances in the emerging field of wearable chemosensors.

The manuscript is interesting, but the field of wearable chemosensors is overcrowded with reviews like this. The manuscript lacks novelty and has only few recent references from the field. I suggest the Authors to focus on some specific field/analyte within the wearable chemosensors. In this sense this could be added value review paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This review article by Koralli and Mouzakis aims to provide an overview of progress in the development of wearable chemosensors. This rapidly evolving field forms a central element in the burgeoning of personalized medicine and rapid remote biodiagnosis. For this reason, it can be stated that a variety of different approaches are being brought forward from a wide range of scientific disciplines to address this interdisciplinary challenge.From my point of view, the topic of this manuscript fits excellently to the journal chemosensors. Unfortunately, the scientific merit of this contribution is too low and thus I feel unable to endorse its publication. However, I support a reconsideration after substantial revisions including a revised concept, several additional figures, and an improved scientific discussion. This conclusion is based on a number of inconsistencies which I would like to address briefly below.

 

Comments/questions:

1. It seems, if I am not mistaken, that the two authors have not yet published a peer-reviewed paper in the specific topic of wearable chemosensors, which might make some readers doubt their competence and experience in this field. After reviewing the referenced publications, it seems that only one reference refers to a paper by the authors. It also appears that this work has not (yet) been accepted or published. This is a poor basis and makes it very difficult to support a publication of a review article in this field by the relatively unknown authors. It is good scientific practice that such reviews are provided by researchers with a deep experience in the addressed field, which seems not to be the case here and might explain the poor quality of the manuscript.
2. The review appears to be written very superficially. Several points are addressed but the scientific discussion lacks depth. This is particularly evident in the fact that the sections mention a series of approaches and concepts, but do not clearly contrast them in terms of their specific requirements and property profiles. This needs to be reviewed in depth.
3. The number and quality of illustrations is insufficient. Three Figures for an overview article of this scope are too few. Here, the lack of concept becomes apparent. Given the many examples mentioned in the various sections, I would expect that the authors show some selected example structures, systems, and concepts from the literature; explain their working principles; compare their advantages and challenges; to highlight the directions the field in moving toward. Substantial revisions are necessary here to make this manuscript provide a merit for the field.
4. Figure 1 is a very rudimentary schematic drawing and lacks substance. Figure 2 is a representation of a Bluetooth sensor circuit. Additional explanations of the circuit and the important components in the Figure would be very helpful. Please revise.
5. Figure 3 is unpublished work by the authors and sadly is missing a connection to the topic. Please do not understand me wrong, showing unpublished work in a review article might be appropriate, however, in this case it seems not very substantial. Also, this Figure is not even referenced in the text and a description of the Figure content and significance is not presented. I discourage the authors to show this unpublished data simply for promoting their work, especially given that its connection to the topic is unclear. This appear to me like a case bordering bad scientific practice. Such a review articles should, after all, give an overview of the field based on peer-reviewed published advances.
6. Section 2.2.1 2D and 3D printing is not well developed because it lacks scientific discussion and is too superficial.
7. Section 2.2.2 Micro and nanofabrication techniques is by far the section with the lowest information content and only provides a single reference, namely one by the authors. A major problem here is that this reference could not be resolved as it is missing all necessary information like year, volume, etc. Even after intensive searches, I was not able to find this publication online. I suspect that it is unpublished work. In any case, I see this as a case of bad scientific practice and I represents a very poor foundation for section 2.2.2. From my perspective, major revision would be necessary including a profound scientific discussion and addition of other works in literature.
8. Section 3 is very poorly presented and does not show a single figure.
9. Section 4 (energy harvesting) is addressing a topic with high relevance and significance but falls very short in discussing the recent advances. The authors should explain the working mechanisms of the current strategies to supply of power (e.g. by the Seebeck effect.) Otherwise I see little reason in addressing this topic. Please revise.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors summarized the recent advances in wearable chemical sensors. Although being interesting and informative, I find that there are some major issues with the paper that require addressing prior to this being considered for publication in this journal. I have identified the main points for consideration below:

1. This manuscript is full of spelling typos, style errors and grammatical errors, which severely affect its readability. Pleases carefully check and correct them in the revised manuscript.
2. The challenge and future directions of wearable chemical sensors should be discussed in detail.
3. I suggest the authors add a schematic diagram for various types of chemical sensors in the revised manuscript.
4. The author should address the practical applications of wearable chemical sensors when discuss a specific sensor.
5. Some recent work related to wearable chemical sensors should be cited. For example, Materials Science & Engineering C, 2020,109, 110615; Nano Res. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-021-3330-8; ; Analytical Chemistry, 2021, 93(4): 2603-2609; Talanta, 2021,222, 121484. Advanced Functional Materials, 2020, 30(51): 2005703; ACS Nano, 2020,14(5), 6067-6075; ACS sensors,2020, 5(9), 2679-2700.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was significantly improved and it can be published. 

Author Response

We thank both the reviewers for their extended efforts. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have performed significant effort to format and improve the manuscript according to Reviewer`s comments.

The manuscript is more focused, with updated recent references.

Author Response

We thank both the reviewers for their extended efforts. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided a revised version and I feel that the authors have not been able to address the concerns raised. In my initial report I have brought forth my concerns that the scientific merit of this contribution was too low and that it would require substantial revisions including a revised concept, several additional figures, and an improved scientific discussion to make this contribution acceptable for ChemoSensors.  Unfortunately, I must state that the authors' revisions did not adequately address any of these points. The concept was not improved and reshaped as suggested. The discussion in the manuscript also seems quite superficial. The new figures are below the quality standards and comparable reviews in the field. I want to make it clear that this is not a matter of style or presentation, but relates solely to the scientific value of the presentation. A particular issue is (still) to put one's own work in the foreground, which is not appropriate, especially when that work is based on unpublished data (see Ref. 44 and Fig. 4). For this reference, neither a volume, page numbers, nor a DOI number has been provided. Neither a simple google search for the title and the author names did not give any results. This would be considered bad scientific practice by the majority of researchers, as it circumvents the scientific review process. All in all, I am dissatisfied with the revised version and therefore do not feel able to endorse a publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have not well adressed the issues raised by all reviewers. Besides, the recent related  references (especially for reviewer recommendation)  have not been cited in the revised manuscript. So I cannot recommend this paper for publication in the present form. I suggest the author carefully consider the review comments and make substantial changes again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided a second revised version and I again feel that the authors have not been able to address the concerns raised. As I have indicated each time, I object very strongly to the practice of promoting own unpublished woks (see Ref 47), which is in the eyes of many researchers bad scientific practice. I can accept that the authors are of different opinion in regard to this matter but if this review has been written with the motivation to promote the field and not to simply advertise theirs own work, I would have expected that they resolve the issue - which they did not. Instead they indicate that the work was soon to be published but in the current state (and in the last two versions submitted for review) it was not published. Overall the authors did a poor job to resolve the indicated issues and I am still not convinced of the scientific values of this work. I am aware that it is a matter of opinion which is good scientific practice. In the end the editor needs to decide on how the journal aims to handle such conflicts.

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept in present form