This result demonstrates that different interpretations of specific capacitance exist within the community, and these can lead to significantly different reported values for the same performance metric. This stresses the need for clearer definitions when reporting specific capacitance to eliminate ambiguity in reported results. Therefore, we recommend clearly defining how "specific capacitance" is interpreted when reporting values for this performance parameter in the literature. It is crucial to indicate if the reported specific capacitance values refer to the electrode material in a two-electrode cell, to the electrode material independent of device architecture (i.e., as a "pseudo" single electrode measurement), or to the overall device including non-active components such as current collectors. This would prevent confusion within the literature and allow for a more straightforward comparison of results. The use of three-electrode measurements is also recommended to determine the capacitance of a single electrode. This would remove confusion on the terminology for two-electrode devices. As shown in Figure , reported total internal resistance values from both Files 1 and 2 can be divided into two groups, independent of whether the dataset is classified as ideal or non-ideal. This division is the result of several groups using the incorrect formula, where the Ohmic voltage drop at the start of discharging is divided by the current applied during the GCD experiment. However, the change in current when transitioning from charging to discharging, ∆I, needs to be used for this calculation. Assuming the magnitude of the charge and discharge currents is equal and that no potentiostatic or rest step is applied between charge and discharge, the current is changing from +I to -I during this transition. Therefore, ∆I is equal to 2I, and the voltage drop should be divided by this value to accurately calculate the total internal resistance, as in Equation 5 :