Next Article in Journal
Effect of Substrate Temperature on the Properties of RF Magnetron Sputtered p-CuInOx Thin Films for Transparent Heterojunction Devices
Next Article in Special Issue
Room-Temperature Infrared Photodetectors with Zero-Dimensional and New Two-Dimensional Materials
Previous Article in Journal
Synergistic Effect of Dipping in Aloe Vera Gel and Mixing with Chitosan or Calcium Chloride on the Activities of Antioxidant Enzymes and Cold Storage Potential of Peach (Prunus persica L.) Fruits
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mid-IR Intraband Photodetectors with Colloidal Quantum Dots
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Simulation of Resonant Cavity-Coupled Colloidal Quantum-Dot Detectors with Polarization Sensitivity

Coatings 2022, 12(4), 499; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12040499
by Pengfei Zhao 1,†, Ge Mu 1,†, Menglu Chen 1,2,3 and Xin Tang 1,2,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Coatings 2022, 12(4), 499; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12040499
Submission received: 28 February 2022 / Revised: 29 March 2022 / Accepted: 5 April 2022 / Published: 7 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Advanced Quantum Dots Films in Optoelectronics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Disclaimer:

All comments are meant to be friendly, helpful and constructive - lack of time might have spoiled this goal. Then I'm sorry.

# Overview

In the manuscript authored by Pengfei Zhao1, Ge Mu1, Menglu Chen1 and Xin Tang the concept of simulation of resonant cavity-coupled colloidal quantum-dot and detectors with Polarization Sensitivity is present as an report a simulation study of colloidal quantum dots infrared detectors with monolithically integrated metal wire grid polarizer and optical cavity. The authors propose the hypothesis that coupling CQD infrared detector with wire grid polarizer and optical cavity can become a promising way to realize high-performance infrared optoelectronic devices.  

# Assessment

The paper was very hard to read, as, especially at the beginning, topics are mixed without warning and statements without major content. 
Introduction is missing two important elements i.e., (i) Hypothesis explanation, and (ii) Novelty statement. These two important mentioning will guide the reader towards the heart of the article. Underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That would help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article. The Introduction is not clear from the review what gaps are identified and what problems are proposed to be addressed. The introduction should be rewritten to clarify the issues identified and your innovations. The discussion section is not critical writing. There is no explanation of the findings in the results, no comparison of the results with previous studies, and no new ideas are presented through citations. Have you tried to put the simulations into practice and can the study be proven by the proper functioning of the detector?

Best regards, 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a numerical study of electromagnetic light propagation in optical cavity in conjunction with infrared sensing applications. The underlying methodology of the study seems to be correct, while the presentation and discussion make it difficult to infer the importance of this work and see the true benefit of presented results.

In particular:

  1. It seems like quantum dots are simply modeled as a homogeneous layer with the refractive index corresponding to the refractive index of a material of quantum dot. This is not quite a reliable approach. Quantum dots are usually dispensed in a host medium (typically water) with some volume fraction (not occupying the whole volume of this layer). In such a case, the refractive index of this layer should be appropriately evaluated, for example, on using effective medium theories;
  2. The authors introduce some physical parameters without providing a proper explanation. What is a duty cycle and extinction ratio. How are they calculated and set in simulations?
  3. From Eq.(2), the authors infer that for short-wave and mid-wave infrared, thicknesses of SiO2 and Si should have some particular values. Apparently, only a single lambda has been chosen for each of these configurations. What are these values of lambdas, and how are they justified?
  4. Simulations results have been presented, but it is not clear what is so-called "polarization performance", and how the suggested setup really helps to detect quantum dots? The authors should explain to the reader that the chosen quantum dots have some particular absorption bands in infrared, which should be somehow detected. It is completely unclear how this setup helps to do so.

All-in-all, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript before it can be considered for a publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the work is devoted to an interesting and useful topic. In addition, it is well written, but I have a few questions to the authors that I would like to get an answer to before publishing the work. It can be seen from Figure 1 that, as indicated in the text, the greatest reflection of radiation occurs for TE polarization of incident radiation. Judging by the picture, it falls from below on the structure. Is it possible to schematically display the direction of the radiation incident on the structure? From the arguments on page 4, it is difficult to understand what the authors mean by the term 'duty ratio'? Is it possible to show an expression for it in the article so as not to refer to the reference? What phenomenon leads to the formation of Fano - type resonances in the figure 2b and 2d? Can the authors show in the text the formula for the extinction ration?  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am of the opinion that the article now has more scientific content and can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors satisfactory addressed my concerns. The manuscript can be published in Coatings.

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the paper can be published in Coatings.

Back to TopTop