Écrire un commentaire

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

Partly

The intro concisely lists the limitations of present methods used and but instead of listing their contributions, they mostly just vaguely go over it.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Even though the methods used are well-suited and standard, they lack description. They do not completely explain how the volatge correction is applied, given that terminal voltage needs to relaxed before ocv vs soc calibration, no mention of how the rest works. In general, description is lacking and confusing.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat unsupported

The conclusion is a bit over claimed. They only did cadence simulations of an otherwise complex system with batteries and actual sensors. The claims are a bit far reached and under supported.

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

Somewhat inappropriate or unclear

The figures are a bit low quality, making them hard to read and understand.

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

Neither clearly nor unclearly

They have some future works listed in general but they do not mention their next steps.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

The writing needs refining, specifically the claims need proper explaination and support.

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?

No, it needs a major revision

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.