An Analytical Surface Potential and Effective Charge Density Approach Based Drain Current Model for Amorphous InGaZnO Thin-Film Transistors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have studied the Analytical Surface Potential Based Drain Current Model for the Amorphous InGaZnO Thin-Film Transistors with Effective Charge Density Approach. Authors need to improve the manuscript for the publication.
1. Title of manuscript seemed to be vague or grammatically error. So, suggested to modify the title of manuscript.
2. Figure 8-11, the legends are not clear. There is no any black line.
3. Conclusion section should be improved.
4. How was the gate contact taken from the bottom of silicon oxide since glass is a beneath layer as shown in Fig. 1.
5. Authors have given the different results, but clear explanation between them. Need to elaborate the results and discussion part.
6. English of the manuscript needs to be improved.
7. The continuation or sequential in the introduction section is lacking. So needs to be improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the reply and express our sincere greetings to you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a drain current model for amorphous InGaZnO TFTs. An effective charge density approach is introduced to analytically calculate the surface potential. Good agreement was found with experimental data. However the description of the model should be developped.
- In line 89, the expression of Poisson equation is given for a non-degenerated case. In line 113, it is mentioned that the free charge density of TFT occupies a dominant position in the total charge density on common conditions of above-threshold region. What is really the validity range for the surface potential between these two limits (above threshold voltage and non-degenerated case)? For examples, in figures 2,3,4 6, where is the limit of validity of the model? (what's about the case where the surface potential is lower than 0.1V? or Vg lower than 1V?)
- In part 2, some references to support the model would have been welcome.
- line 119: It is not clear how the equation 3 is justified. (if neff is close to n0 in the above-threshold region, neff~n0?)
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the reply and express our sincere greetings to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper requires major revision. kindly see below comments:
1. Title of the article is not appropriate...kindly revise it
2. In the introduction section, problem definition and objectives are missing
3. Introductions section has many lumpy references...kindly remove lumpy references.
4. Last paragraph of the introduction section must include the problem definition, outcomes, methodology etc.
5. Write at least two novelties of the manuscript
6. Figure 1 and 2 aren't visible properly
7. the content of Figures 4 and 5 are not properly written; kindly revise it
8. Discussion of figures 9 to 11 not proper
9. Revise the concussion of the paper in form of bullet points
10. Add the future work
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the reply and express our sincere greetings to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Suitable modifications are done.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The discussion of the results has been significantly improved. The manuscrit in this current version is now suitable for publication
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
i have seen the revised paper and found that the paper can be accepted after carrying out the following revisions:
1. In the abstract of the paper, the problem definition and objectives are still missing
2. See the last paragraph of the introduction section.
3. See the conclusion of the paper
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
