Annealing Treatment on Homogenous n-TiO2/ZnO Bilayer Thin Film Deposition as Window Layer for p-Cu2O-Based Heterostructure Thin Film
, Fariza Mohamad 1,2,*, Rosniza Hussin 3, Anis Zafirah Mohd Ismail 1,2, Shazleen Ahmad Ramli 1,2, Norazlina Ahmad 1,2, Nik Hisyamudin Muhd Nor 4, Mohd Zainizan Sahdan 1, Mohd Zamzuri Mohammad Zain 5 and Masanobu Izaki 6
Eva Barea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the Authors:
The authors of this paper proposed the n-TiO2/ZnO bilayer thin film as window layer in PV mechanism, which was constructed by utilizing sol-gel spin coating method. It is an interesting work, nevertheless, some details should be considered by the authors:
COMMENT: Page 1, lines 42-44: more (recent) references could be added.
COMMENT: Page 1, line 43: Substitute “… nature which good …” for “… nature which is good …”.
COMMENT: Page 2, line 53: more (recent) references could be added.
COMMENT: Page 2, lines 61-62: “However, these processes are … high cost of equipment”. It is very general. The authors could be more specific and add some relevant references.
COMMENT: Page 3, lines 116-119: More experimental details could be added for the analytical techniques used.
COMMENT: Page 4, lines 158-159: “This can be attributed to … in annealing time [17]”. How much larger? Some quantitative data could be added.
GENERAL COMMENT: The XRD data could be further discussed/commented (for example, some quantitative data could be added concerning the intensities and the widths of the peaks emerge in the XRD patterns).
To conclude, the results support the authors conclusion, therefore, I think that this paper may be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor and the reviewers for spending their precious time to bring up different points and for the invaluable remarks. We have tried our best to address the points raised. The reviewer’s comments have significantly improved the quality of this paper and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research results. The corresponding changes, refinements made in the revised manuscript and our explanations on reviewer’s comments are summarized below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The results presented in this work are low quality. Even the authors say at the end of the paper (line 210-275)
The figure 8 can not be presented in a paper. Please try to optimize the layers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor and the reviewers for spending their precious time to bring up different points and for the invaluable remarks. We have tried our best to address the points raised. The reviewer’s comments have significantly improved the quality of this paper and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research results. The corresponding changes, refinements made in the revised manuscript and our explanations on reviewer’s comments are summarized as attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Whole the manuscript should be completely checked by native editor.
All of the references should be write in same style:
For example ref. 2 and 7 don’t have page numbers!
In the manuscript no recent researches 2022 and even 2021 references were used for discussion section! And just two 2020 published papers were cited.
Data should be repeated at least 3 times and will be reported in (Average+_Standard deviation).
The discussion section should be improved and more recent papers should be compared and cited.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor and the reviewers for spending their precious time to bring up different points and for the invaluable remarks. We have tried our best to address the points raised. The reviewer’s comments have significantly improved the quality of this paper and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research results. The corresponding changes, refinements made in the revised manuscript and our explanations on reviewer’s comments are summarized as attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
the submission presents some comparative analysis of layers of TiO2ZnO with respect to time of annealing; the results are not especially interesting; non theoretical background is provided; the assertions on orientation of crystalline structucture is not properly founded;
the text is poorly written;
all these must be improved before the consideration of publication decision
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor and the reviewers for spending their precious time to bring up different points and for the invaluable remarks. We have tried our best to address the points raised. The reviewer’s comments have significantly improved the quality of this paper and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research results. The corresponding changes, refinements made in the revised manuscript and our explanations on reviewer’s comments are summarized as attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is based on the annealing effect on n-TiO2/ZnO bilayer thin films and its corresponding changes in the optical, structural and electrical changes. The authors have characterized the samples by XRD, UV-Vis, FESEM techniques. The authors have not discussed the results accordingly in some portions, which needs a more detailed analysis with an explanation. Due to the major drawbacks in results and discussions, I am recommending the Major Revision of the manuscript.
1. In the Introduction section, the author should write the importance of annealing on thin film and doing such a study on the specific sample.
2. Any specific reason to take the annealing temperature as 500 0C?
3. The author can also calculate the particle size from the FESEM images by using Image J software. Refer-https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaom.2c00002
4. The author should present the EDAX picture for the presence of elements.
5. The optical analysis is weak. The authors should calculate and plot other important parameters and discuss. Refer- DOI: 10.1039/D2MA00646D, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 905, 164143
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor and the reviewers for spending their precious time to bring up different points and for the invaluable remarks. We have tried our best to address the points raised. The reviewer’s comments have significantly improved the quality of this paper and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research results. The corresponding changes, refinements made in the revised manuscript and our explanations on reviewer’s comments are summarized as attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Now, after revision the paper has increased its quality and it is ready to be publish.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript is acceptable.
Reviewer 4 Report
authors have improved slightly the manuscript;
the paper needs final proofreading
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript accordingly.
