Research Progress of Tungsten Oxide-Based Catalysts in Photocatalytic Reactions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- There is some grammatical mistakes in the file. I highly to recheck it carefully.
2- The authors did not mention any information about the method of synthesis. I think it would be more useful if they add a section of preparation to the article.
3- Very important information and summary was provided but there are no references for them; for example, line 183 – 195 and others. A review article can have more references.
4- To add more data, I suggest following articles:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cnma.202100448
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379677922001114
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11164-023-04963-2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X22021012
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383586622014010
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript belongs to the Review category, includes 14 pages of text and illustrations and 81 sources. The authors made an attempt to generalize new works concerning the photocatalytic properties of tungsten trioxide.
The manuscript contains the following comments:
1. In the introduction, it is necessary to compare the main properties of titanium dioxide, as the most famous photocatalyst, and tungsten trioxide, which is discussed further in the manuscript. In comparison, it makes sense to indicate not only the advantages of tungsten trioxide, but also its disadvantages in comparison with other photocatalysts.
And the relevance of research in this area should be more clearly defined.
2. Sections 2, 2.1, 2.2 need to be expanded by analyzing more publications. Each section contains analysis of 3-4 publications, this is not enough for a review article.
3. The text of the manuscript is not always justified in width. There are no spaces in the designation of references to sources. For example, in line 32, 38, 43 and beyond.
The general impression of the manuscript: for publication in the journal of an article in the review format, it is necessary to seriously revize it.
A rather weak analysis of the works is presented, it needs to be carried out in more detail so that information can be summarized. There is a lack of influence of synthesis methods, morphology, particle size of tungsten trioxide on its photocatalytic properties.
Several reviews on the photocatalytic properties of tungsten trioxide have been published in recent years, for example:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272884221035641
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/en/c6en00478d
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-017-1394-z
The authors need to emphasize the importance and relevance of their proposed review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer #: This review introduces various concepts to improve the photocatalytic performance of WO3, the studies on preparation and modification methods such as doping element, regulating defect and constructing heterojunction to boost the separation of photogenerated carrier in WO3. It highlights the importance of WO3 in a variety of environmental remediation processes including water splitting, the degradation of organic pollutants, as well as the hydrogen reduction of N2 and CO2.
1) A review article aims at achieving THREE essential objectives:
i) providing a complete, structured and systematic summarization on the related key aspects. This means that the authors will summarize those in many figures and tables;
Objectives 1) has been not been achieved, indeed much of the summarized knowledge is well known and already published in other review papers, which have not been cited in the present draft. There is not even a single table provided in the review, and very less figures have been presented. The review already published are as follows.
Dutta, Vishal, et al. "An overview on WO3 based photocatalyst for environmental remediation." Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9.1 (2021): 105018.
Murillo-Sierra, J. C., et al. "A review on the development of visible light-responsive WO3-based photocatalysts for environmental applications." Chemical engineering journal advances 5 (2021): 100070.
Shandilya, Pooja, et al. "Properties, optimized morphologies, and advanced strategies for photocatalytic applications of WO3 based photocatalysts." Journal of Hazardous Materials (2022): 128218.
ii) presenting new discoveries from the authors’ own knowledge synthesis based on existing literature results. This means that the authors will provide important and synthesized new knowledge that are not included in those articles in the literature;
Objective ii) has only been partially achieved as only few studies from literature have been summarized, indeed, it appears that the authors have only focused on the WO3 based composites without even highlighting the studies reported on the pristine WO3. The problems with WO3 should have been discussed by citing the reported studies on pure WO3, then the benefits of WO3 based composites should have been highlighted. Moreover, the authors' own critical thinking via comparing/benchmarking the literature for new knowledge synthesis is not there in the review.
iii) outlining detailed views on future research directions and perspectives.
Objective iii) has been partially achieved (see below).
Therefore, the authors are strongly suggested to revise the review paper to address these weaknesses before the review paper is suitable for publication.as well as important concepts and difficulties in this area together with mechanisms/reaction pathways utilizing various substrates. This review is not up-to-date, incomprehensive and superficial. As mentioned above, there are several reviews on the same topic, thus the authors should present their view on the need of writing this review and how it is different from the reported review articles. Thus, I suggest its publication after addressing the following issues as below:
1) The numbering of sections and subsections are problematic and must be rectified. A index must be provided for the readers
2) At the end of “Introduction” section, the authors need to justify why the review article fills a critical gap in the field, is indeed in need and timely. To my knowledge, Catalysts is a high impact journal and published many review articles related to the topics covered in your review paper (photocatalysis using transition metal oxides and their composites). Please go through those review articles and justify what make your review paper worthwhile for publication?
4) This is a review paper that should be forwarding-looking. At present, future research perspectives are only briefly lumped in the last section "Conclusions and perspective". To make the review article be more forward-looking, please separate this section into two sections, i.e. a section with title like "Challenges and Perspectives" and a section with title like "Conclusions". The new section "Challenges and Perspectives" should be expanded to systematically outline the authors' detailed views on the key challenges, existing research gaps and future research directions etc., including also potential future developments in research methodologies (both experimental and modelling) that are important to future development of the related field. This section brings critical benefits to the readership and usually have at least 1 page in printing form.
The new section "Conclusions" can then wrap up your review paper with concluding remarks.
5) Catalysts published many recent articles on the related topics covered in your review paper. As a review paper, your manuscript needs to cover those latest advances and doing so also better connect with the readership of the journal. Therefore, please do a search and cover those articles published in catalysts, if relevant and you haven't done so. Few examples are as follows:
https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13020287 -
https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13010175
https://doi.org/10.3390/catal12101218
6. A table must be provided and more figures should be added
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers, now the manuscript in ready to be accepted.
