Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The in-situ H doping in In₂O₃ thin films and transistors is well discussed in this work. It is demonstrated that the prepared In₂O₃:H TFTs have sound electrical properties, including a high field effect mobility of 47.8 cm² /Vs, a small subthreshold swing 0.25 V/dec., as well as the reduced defects and improved film quality. Before accepting this work for publication, I have several issues that are not clear to me, as listed below:

1．      In the article, the field-effect mobility in this work is much higher than the hall mobility. What’s the reason behind?

2．      In the Figure2(c), so many particles are present at the Pt region, and please explain this phenomenon.

3．      It is necessary to be polished for the written English.

For example: In the line 116，“It is worth mentioning that these observation diverge from existing reports on H-doped In₂O₃” …

 

The I_D of In₂O₃ TFT without H₂ introduction decreased to 361 μA (V_GS=1 V, V_DS=15 V).” to The I_D of In₂O₃ TFT without introducing H₂ is decreased to 361 μA (V_GS=1 V, V_DS=15 V)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Effect of in-situ H doping on the electrical properties of In₂O₃ thin-film transistors” by Hu et. al. demonstrated the effect of H-doping in In₂O₃ thin film for TFT applications. The study reveals that doping contributes to diminishing surface defects within the thin film, consequently leading to a significant reduction in electron concentration. This reduction is supported by Hall effect measurements. Furthermore, TFT measurements indicate a shift in the threshold voltage (VTh) towards positive values, suggesting a decrease in electron concentration, while the decrease in subthreshold swing (SS) implies a reduction in defect states. The introduction of H doping results in notable enhancement in charge carrier mobility. Overall, the research demonstrates commendable merit and constitutes a crucial contribution to this field. However, the following questions and comments require addressing before the paper can be published.

Comments:

1.     In figure 1b, the lagend is missing. Also, the authors should include the JCPDS data of In₂O₃ for comparison.

2.     In figure 2a-d, authors did not discuss the (200) crystal plane which is observed for the doped samples but not for the pristine sample. Please explain this.

 

3.     In figure 2g, annealing in air reduced the O/In ratio significantly for the pristine sample, whereas for doped sample it increased marginally after annealing. Can authors provide a possible explanation?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall English language quality of the manuscript is decent, although needs some minor corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary amendments in the revised version which is satisfactory. I would like to recommend this work to be published in the Electronics journal.