- Summary
- A genuinely promising stability result, but round-one evidence for the passivation mechanism was indirect. With direct interfacial characterization this becomes a strong paper.
- Strengths
- Clear hypothesis, pre-registered analysis, honest reporting of limitations, and openly available data and code. The figures are legible and the statistics report effect sizes.
- Weaknesses
- The sample is smaller than ideal for the secondary analyses, one control condition is missing, and two citations are outdated. Reproducibility of Figure 3 needs the raw pipeline.
- Detailed comments
- Methods: specify the randomization seed and hardware. Stats: add a sensitivity analysis for the excluded outliers. Figures: Fig. 3 needs error bars and an n per cell. Lit: engage the 2024–2025 replications. None of this is fatal; most is a revision away.
RSP-2026-0001 · Materials SciencePublishedv2 · round 2
Defect-Tolerant Perovskite Thin Films for Stable Photovoltaics
Amy Winehaus, Dr. T. Stark, Prof. M. Curie · submitted May 8, 2026 · published Jul 5, 2026
- perovskite
- photovoltaics
- thin films
- stability
100% · Published
Open peer-reviewed research. Publication here is a review record, not an endorsement of clinical use — this material is not medical advice.
Abstract
We report a passivation strategy that suppresses non-radiative recombination at grain boundaries in metal-halide perovskite thin films, yielding devices that retain 92% of initial efficiency after 1,000 hours of continuous illumination. We characterize the mechanism with transient photoluminescence and space-charge-limited current measurements, and we release the full fabrication protocol and analysis pipeline openly.
Manuscript — v2
Viewer not loading? Open the PDF directly
Version history
The Review Record
4 reviews on record── Round 1 ──
- Summary
- Solid device work. My concerns are about aging conditions and statistical treatment of outlier pixels, both addressable.
- Strengths
- Clear hypothesis, pre-registered analysis, honest reporting of limitations, and openly available data and code. The figures are legible and the statistics report effect sizes.
- Weaknesses
- The sample is smaller than ideal for the secondary analyses, one control condition is missing, and two citations are outdated. Reproducibility of Figure 3 needs the raw pipeline.
- Detailed comments
- Methods: specify the randomization seed and hardware. Stats: add a sensitivity analysis for the excluded outliers. Figures: Fig. 3 needs error bars and an n per cell. Lit: engage the 2024–2025 replications. None of this is fatal; most is a revision away.
Two careful reviews converge: the result is exciting but round-one mechanistic evidence was indirect. Please add direct interfacial characterization, a humidity-controlled aging series, and a sensitivity analysis for excluded pixels. We look forward to the revision.
── Round 2 ──
- Summary
- The XPS depth profiling in the revision directly supports the interfacial-layer claim. My round-one concerns are fully resolved.
- Strengths
- Clear hypothesis, pre-registered analysis, honest reporting of limitations, and openly available data and code. The figures are legible and the statistics report effect sizes.
- Weaknesses
- Minor: Fig. S6 color scale could be colorblind-safe. Non-blocking.
- Detailed comments
- Methods: specify the randomization seed and hardware. Stats: add a sensitivity analysis for the excluded outliers. Figures: Fig. 3 needs error bars and an n per cell. Lit: engage the 2024–2025 replications. None of this is fatal; most is a revision away.
- Summary
- The humidity series and sensitivity analysis close my concerns. Reproducible, honest, and openly licensed. Publish it.
- Strengths
- Clear hypothesis, pre-registered analysis, honest reporting of limitations, and openly available data and code. The figures are legible and the statistics report effect sizes.
- Weaknesses
- None blocking. Consider archiving the raw pipeline with a DOI.
- Detailed comments
- Methods: specify the randomization seed and hardware. Stats: add a sensitivity analysis for the excluded outliers. Figures: Fig. 3 needs error bars and an n per cell. Lit: engage the 2024–2025 replications. None of this is fatal; most is a revision away.
Both reviewers confirm their concerns are resolved by the revision. This is exactly how open review should work — in public, on the record. Accepted, and eligible for The Amp given the commercial interest in stable perovskites. Congratulations.