ArticleDiscover electrochemistry2026
Establishing a living systematic review of characterisation and parameter reporting in lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur cathode research.
Article in Discover electrochemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancing energy storage and decarbonising transportation while improving today's Lithium-ion technology remain crucial, however it is equally important to pioneer new battery systems, such as lithium-sulfur (Li-S), which can meet future demands. Despite decades of progress in materials synthesis and characterisation, inconsistencies in parameter reporting and testing standards continue to limit reproducibility and cross-comparison across the battery literature. Here, we present a systematic meta-analysis of nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide (NMC) Li-ion and Li-S cathode systems, using a Python-based graphical user interface to standardise data extraction for electrode fabrication, electrochemical testing, and physical characterisation. The analysis reveals that even for the higher-technology readiness level (TRL) NMC chemistry, key experimental parameters such as electrode thickness, testing temperature, and formation protocols are frequently omitted. Both battery systems also exhibit inconsistencies in analytical procedures and ambiguity in the understanding of underlying principles when interpreting characterisation results. Our findings highlight systematic under-reporting of scalable manufacturing parameters and essential comparability metrics across both chemistries. This work establishes a cross-chemistry benchmark for transparent and reproducible reporting, providing a foundation for accelerating the translation of materials-level advances toward higher TRLs. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44373-026-00099-1.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.