Reactive Sputtering Process Study for Vanadium Oxynitride Films
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, the authors have deposited the amorphous vanadium oxynitride thin films by a sputtering system in the presence of oxygen and nitrogen gases. Then, the films are crystallized by rapid thermal annealing at 600 and 700 temperatures. Essentially, the work is maybe interesting, however, the following points should be addressed before it can be accepted.
1. Some figures are confused and without labels. It is recommended to assemble them in a better way.
2. Why is the rapid (not a normal) heating process chosen to crystallize the films?
3. In figure 7, why does the reduction of nitrogen flow cause the resistance to decrease? It can be also seen that the decrease in resistance is accompanied by a decrease in charge density! While samples with lower resistance should have a higher charge density!
4. In Figure 8, the representation of all three absorption, reflection and transmission spectra is complicated. It is better to report one of these three spectrums!
5. In Figure 9, the energy band gap of 1.28 is calculated in the case of N2=3 sccm and O2=0.25 sccm. The energy band gap of N2=10 sccm, O2=0.25 sccm case is measured to be 1.90 eV. Explain this process of energy band gap change. The following papers may be useful:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.151228
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2022.141379
6. In the fabrication section, it is mentioned that the dimensions of all samples are 2x2 cm2, but Figure 10 does not show this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written
Pg.5 of line 170 - The laser source is 224 eV ultraviolet light 170 by He of and the incident angle is set at 45.0°.
Chk it, It should be 224 nm and not 224 eV
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Studying the manuscript, I came to the opinion that the conclusion - which is correct and appropriate - is proved in too much detail .
My comments are as follows.
1) Table 2 contains six O2/N2 flow rate data. This somewhat contradicts the result shown in Fig. 1, as it contains oxygen data up to 3 sccm. Only three of theO2/N2 flow rates given in the table have different O2/N2 partial pressure ratios, even though this is decisive for the formation of the oxide/nitride ratio.
2) I find the chapters "3.2 OES for Chamber Plasma" and thus "2.3.1. Chamber Plasma" redundant from the point of view of the result and conclusion, they do not contain anything new professionally.
3) I also find the paragraph "3.4 Raman" and "3.4 Raman" to be omitted; his measurement results are not very convincing and are not important from the point of view of the conclusion. By the way, line 281 contains incorrect data, as it refers to the nitrogen inlet.
4) In paragraph 3.6, we would expect the thickness and/or roughness data of the surface profiler mentioned in the introduction, but we cannot find any data on the actual layer thickness or the scale of the SEM images. Therefore, the content of paragraph "2.3.3. Crystal Structure" also seems redundant. Among the photos, the O2/N2= 0.5/10 at 700C sample is significantly different from the others. The occurrence of a surface blistering mechanism accompanied by the release of gases, which may occur as a result of the heat treatment, cannot be ruled out.
5) In paragraph "3.8. UV-Visbile-NIR Spectrum", it is sufficient to show the transmittances.
6) Formal problems
- O2, N2, must be displayed on the figures; the notation of O2, N2 is misleading
- in Fig. 1, the text of the commentary is unnecessary, the paragraph "table 0" below this figure is inappropriate
- Fig. 9 caption is correctly "BAND GAP"
- Fig. 10 is not very convincing; instead of the figure, the transmission data contains sufficient information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have carefully studied my comments. The implemented changes were made in accordance with my review. In my opinion, the manuscript has become clearer, so I recommend its publication.
