As shown in the above examples, compared to Examples 1-1 and 1-2, Comparative Example 1-1 changed the used dopant elements. Correspondingly, the positive electrode material obtained in Comparative Example 1-1 had an intrinsic specific surface area and an intrinsic pore distribution (R10, R50 and R90) both greater than those of the positive electrode materials in Examples 1-1 and 1-2. Correspondingly, it had a decreased cycle performance, with a capacity retention of only 88.6% after 80 cycles. At the same time, the positive electrode material obtained in Comparative Example 1-1 did not have a layered structure with sufficient ion stability, which made it easier to form cracks at grain boundaries, leading to a significant decrease in compressive strength. Therefore, although it had relatively good initial cycling capacity, it had degraded cycle performance at high current rates. Although Comparative example 1-2 involved the same dopant systems as those of Example 1-1 and Example 1-2, it used too low temperatures for the steps of calcining. It led to formation of incomplete crystal phases, poor construction of channels for transferring Li+, low Li+ transference number, and insufficient utilization of capacity. Comparative Example 1-3 used a reduced oxygen flow rate, leading to longer calcining time and slower oxidation. It resulted in severe Li/Ni disordering, easier formation of cracks at grain boundaries, and a decrease in compressive strength. At the same time, the transferring of Li+ was hindered. In this regard, although the initial capacity was normal, Li+ could not effectively return to its original position, leading to a decrease in both rate performance and cycle performance. When comparing Examples 2-1 and 2-2 with Comparative Examples 2-1 to 2-3, the results were consistent with the above.