Advances in Silicon-Based UV Light Detection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following suggestions:

1) How does this review differentiate itself from the many existing reviews on UV photodetectors? Please clarify the novelty and unique contribution of this work.

2) Can authors provide a more critical comparison of the different Si surface engineering techniques (passivation, ion implantation, quantum cutting, plasmonics) in terms of scalability, CMOS compatibility, and long-term stability?

3) Several performance values are reported across devices in the tables, but the comparison is inconsistent. Could you normalize or analyze these results under comparable conditions (e.g., wavelength, bias voltage) to highlight relative merits more clearly?

4) The discussion of hybrid wide bandgap/Si structures is largely descriptive. Can you expand on practical strategies to overcome lattice mismatch and thermal expansion challenges, and cite any recent successful demonstrations?

5) Many of the figures are reproduced from other sources. Could you integrate them more tightly into your analysis and explain their relevance to the arguments being made?

6) The conclusion section is general and somewhat repetitive. Could you sharpen it by identifying which approaches (among Si modifications, hybrid structures, or alternative materials) are most viable for near-term commercialization?

7) The introduction contains an extended list of UV applications. Could you condense this section and focus more on the motivation for Si-based detectors specifically?

8) Some of the terminology (e.g., “non-solar blindness,” “frustratingly shallow”) is informal. Could you revise for precision and consistency in technical language?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment 1.  How does this review differentiate itself from the many existing reviews on UV photodetectors? Please clarify the novelty and unique contribution of this work.

Response. Thanks for the valuable advice and comments. While most of the reviews about ultraviolet detection are focused on wide bandgap materials as base materials, this manuscript is one of the few in its dedicated emphasis on the utilization of Si as base material for UV detection. This work includes a comparison between Silicon and wide bandgap materials, and focus on strategies developed to enhance the UV detection performance of Si.

Comment 2. Can authors provide a more critical comparison of the different Si surface engineering techniques (passivation, ion implantation, quantum cutting, plasmonics) in terms of scalability, CMOS compatibility, and long-term stability?

Response. Thanks for the valuable advice and comments. In response to your suggestion about the critical comparison of the engineering techniques, we have added a subsection 5.6. Here we critically compared the feasibility of the engineering techniques for upgrade towards industrial scale and discussed the CMOS-compatibility of each technique.

Comment 3. Several performance values are reported across devices in the tables, but the comparison is inconsistent. Could you normalize or analyze these results under comparable conditions (e.g., wavelength, bias voltage) to highlight relative merits more clearly?

Response. Thank you for suggesting normalizing the performance values. Direct normalization of the performance parameters remains elusive due to the difference in experimental conditions. Furthermore, some researchers have evaluated the photodetector performances based on the “external quantum efficiency” whereas, other used “responsivity” as the basic performance parameter. In response, we have added missing information in table 2, with available data and added the relevant text just before the table.

Comment 4. The discussion of hybrid wide bandgap/Si structures is largely descriptive. Can you expand on practical strategies to overcome lattice mismatch and thermal expansion challenges, and cite any recent successful demonstrations?

Response. Thank you for the suggestion. We have expanded section 5.5 with discussion on thermal and lattice mismatch challenges and cited the recent articles relevant to this point as shown in lines 554-566 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 5. Many of the figures are reproduced from other sources. Could you integrate them more tightly into your analysis and explain their relevance to the arguments being made?

Response. Thanks for the valuable advice and comments. We have added explanations for figures including figures 2, 5, 6, and 11 for respective discussions to make contents relevant to the corresponding points more convincing (see lines 65-67, 224-227, 264-265, 426-429 of the revised manuscript.)

Comment 6. The conclusion section is general and somewhat repetitive. Could you sharpen it by identifying which approaches (among Si modifications, hybrid structures, or alternative materials) are most viable for near-term commercialization?

Response. Thank you for the suggestion. We have sharpened the conclusion section towards highlighting use of Si for UV light detection by way of a number of techniques to harvest advantages of Si, particularly focusing on its hybrid structure with wide bandgap materials.

Comment 7. The introduction contains an extended list of UV applications. Could you condense this section and focus more on the motivation for Si-based detectors specifically?

Response. Thank you for the suggestion. We have shortened the UV application list and abstracted the corresponding sentences as seen in lines 40-41 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 8. Some of the terminology (e.g., “non-solar blindness,” “frustratingly shallow”) is informal. Could you revise for precision and consistency in technical language?

Response. Thank you for noticing this inconsistency. We have revised the informal expressions. We replaced the “non-solar blindness” with “solar sensitivity” as seen in line 58, and “frustratingly shallow” with “notably limited” as seen in line 612.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For this review on ultraviolet detectors, I have the following comments:

1. The classification in lines 46–51 is too arbitrary. Clearly, detectors with interdigitated metal electrodes on semiconductors is not on the same hierarchical level as the other categories.
2. Why is the section Parameters relevant to photodetector performance left blank?
3. The description in lines 149–157 is very confusing. First, the sentence is overly long. I do not see the connection between photoconductivity and the Schottky junction, and I do not understand why a photoconductive device would have forward and reverse bias.
4. The classification of Metal–Semiconductor–Metal UV detectors is rather puzzling. This can be regarded as a structural configuration, but it does not qualify as a distinct type of detector.
5. In the classification of detectors, I find it difficult to see the characteristics and uniqueness of ultraviolet detectors. The descriptions provided seem to apply equally to visible and infrared detectors. At the very least, I believe more examples highlighting the specific features of ultraviolet detectors are needed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1. The classification in lines 46–51 is too arbitrary. Clearly, detectors with interdigitated metal electrodes on semiconductors is not on the same hierarchical level as the other categories.

Response. Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We removed “detectors with interdigitated electrodes” as seen in line 46 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 2. Why is the section Parameters relevant to photodetector performance left blank?

Response. The section title may have been mistakenly edited in its position (The section has its contents that follow the title). We revised it for better clarity as seen in line 85 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 3. The description in lines 149–157 is very confusing. First, the sentence is overly long. I do not see the connection between photoconductivity and the Schottky junction, and I do not understand why a photoconductive device would have forward and reverse bias.

Response. The lines are revised to avoid any confusion as seen in lines 250-258 of the revised manuscript. We remove the words including Schottky junction and forward bias for better clarity.

Comment 4. The classification of Metal–Semiconductor–Metal UV detectors is rather puzzling. This can be regarded as a structural configuration, but it does not qualify as a distinct type of detector.

Response. Thank you for your valuable advice. We have merged this part (Metal–Semiconductor–Metal UV detectors) with the contents of wide band-gap semiconductors for section 4 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 5. In the classification of detectors, I find it difficult to see the characteristics and uniqueness of ultraviolet detectors. The descriptions provided seem to apply equally to visible and infrared detectors. At the very least, I believe more examples highlighting the specific features of ultraviolet detectors are needed.

Response. Thanks for your valuable comments. We agreed with the reviewer point and accordingly revised the section foreword in the revised manuscript as seen in lines 187-192. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am willing to accept the manuscript in its current form. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After modification, the manuscript can be accepted.