Escribir un comentario

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

No

The abstract omits the study's central aim and its significance. It reads as a description of characterization methods rather than a statement of what the work achieved and why it matters. A strong abstract should convey the key findings, their implications, and the broader impact of the project, not just the techniques used. It is also populated with instrument details whereas we do not need those in the abstract and are again mentioned word to word in the manuscript. Similarly, the introduction lacks the correct background, set up and motivation of the manuscript. Literature is missing and the only thing mentioned is what was done and what idea.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Neither appropriate nor inappropriate

Experimental strategy is appropriate and the comparisons are logically constructed, but the methods are underdeveloped for certain claims. No replication or error is reported, comparison between open and closed porosity is asserted rather than measured, and no kinetics despite a diffusion-based mechanism. These points should be fixed with additional measurements, or by softening the claims to match what is measured.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The conclusion that porous P/M electrodes outperform the bulk sheet is well supported through the metrics discussed for both Sa and Sb and the temperature trend in Table 5 is clear. However, this result is not actually stated in the conclusions, which restate the process recipe instead of the quantitative outcomes. The primary claim, the ranking Sa0>Sb0>B0, with Sa0 optimal, is not supported. The differences come from single measurements and not replicates therefore need to be softened claims or by adding replicates with error estimates. The text and table 6 discrepancy in Sb1 HAR must also be reconciled.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The XRD stack is the strongest evidence and is presented clearly. Figure 1 also does a good job of clarifying a complex designation scheme. The tables are well organized however, under built. Table 6 gives values as a single number with no uncertainty or replicates, and Table 5 reports only total porosity when the argument depends on open vs closed porosity. The SEM images are purely qualitative, yet the text draws quantitative claims from them without giving any context as to how, no pore size analysis demonstrated. Furthermore, the study's main highlights are not plotted. Adding a HAR/HER bar chart with error bars and a porosity vs performance plot would do more for the manuscript.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

The mechanistic reasoning is plausible, porosity linked to transport, α-solubility to evolution, sintering temperature to phase. But interpretation outruns the data. Connectivity and diffusion are discussed as established when never measured. The internal contradictions go unaddressed, the Sa/Sb metric split is smoothed into one ranking, and the Sb1 HAR discrepancy (99.1% vs 99.4%) is ignored. Next steps are essentially absent, no discussion of cyclic stability, kinetics, or application, and the Conclusions restate the recipe rather than pointing forward. The authors should flag measured vs inferred claims, address the contradictions, and add a brief future-work paragraph.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

Yes, modestly but with substantial revision. The core finding is genuine and useful that porous P/M Ti-153 electrodes clearly outperform the bulk sheet on both absorption and evolution, and the hydride-crush-sinter route to tune porosity is a practical contribution worth reporting. That alone has value for the Ti-based hydrogen-storage community. But the contribution is currently held back by what's missing. No replication or uncertainty, open/closed porosity asserted rather than measured, no kinetics despite a diffusion-based mechanism, an overstated Sa0 ranking that the data don't support, and no cyclic-stability data. As it stands it reads as a promising preliminary study rather than a firm advance. With the missing measurements and corrected claims, it would make a solid, publishable contribution.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

There are grammatical errors in however the most consistent error throughout the paper is spacing between units and texts as well as consistent use of the units (hours is sometimes hrs, sometimes h etc). ImKc the m and c are not in subscripts as they should be and there are some consistent errors throughout.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.