The Effect of RF Sputtering Conditions on the Physical Characteristics of Deposited GeGaN Thin Film

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The manuscript discusses deposition and characterization of GeGaN thin films by reactive rf magnetron sputtering.

It is not very clear what is new in this current manuscript compared to the earlier work published as Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing 74 (2018) 336. There are more substrate temperatures and discharge power values explored here. However, does this make much of a difference regarding the overall results ?

There is also something missing in the current manuscript. At least one figure is missing that is discussed on page 9. So the manuscript is not ready for a review in the current form.

 

The English needs improvement.

I have a few specific comments:

 

i) In section "Experimental details": Is the partial pressure of N2 higher than for than Ar ? Why not write 9 mTorr. What is the distance from target to substrate and the angle between substrate and target ?

ii) Line 7 of abstract: "owned" -> "exhibited"

iii) On page 7 line 166 there is a reference to Figure 4. There is no figure 4. But this should probably be Figure 2.

iv) On page 9 line 216 there is a reference to Figure 5 (b). However there is no Figure 5.

v) On page 9 line 221 it is stated: "At low sputtering power condition, Ge insufficient solid solution precipitated at the grain boundaries prevents internal carriers transfer in films which cause a lower free carrier concentration while Ge solid solution can be increased with the power upgrade." Why should this occur ? What is the solid solubility of Ge in GaN ? Does all the Ge sit in a Ga site ? How is the Ge distributed ? Later it says "...while Ge solid solution can be increased with the power upgrade." What is the mechanism ?

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, I will answer with a point-by-point response to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Sir,
The paper is interesting and well prepared in which a simple however it can be improved in some area as follows:

In the abstract

One introductory sentence can be useful at the beginning of the abstract keywords should be arranged alphabetically and number of keywords can  be increased

Introduction section:

It is not recommended to use the pronoun “We” in the context many times please use in this research. At the end of the introduction the aim of the research can be separated from the long sentence to be clearer for the reader.

In the other section

Some grammatical error should be corrected and there is some typos in the manuscript for example:

Line 82 from Data should be data Line 91 Argon to argon Line 103 please adjust the numbers format In table 1 please add the unit of heating substrate in degree and sputtering power in W. 1 for SEM is not in a good quality and cannot be distinguished if it printed in black and white. Figure 4 and 5 is not presented in the manuscript???? Could the author give more information about the XRD interpretation for the obtained phases? How many replicate did you perform for the analysis? Conclusion is short and need to be expanded. Reference should be checked carefully according to the style author’s guide.

Regards

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, I will answer with a point-by-point response to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The authors have mostly responded to earlier concerns.

 

There is still some confusion in the reference to figures.  Often the numbering is incorrect.  Figure 4(a) is never discussed but has interesting data.

 

I marked some corrections into the manuscript that is attached.  But my corrections here are by no means complete.  The English and style still needs major corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks you for your commnent. I checked and re-write all manucript.