ZnO-Based Materials: From Pauli’s Nonsense to a Key Enabling Technology
, Adalyz Ferreiro 2, Gregorio Flores-Carrasco 3, Sara Rodríguez-Cañamero 1, Ana Urbieta 1, María Eugenia Rabanal 2 and Paloma Fernández 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article begins by intending to be a review article on the importance of semiconductors since they appeared until our days, on ZnO as well, its properties and its defects, ending with a work in the laboratory in which they make a synthesis of “samples”. Regarding laboratory work, the part related to the synthesis of the doped nanostructured material is poorly documented.
SEM images are not resolved to show what is written in the text.
In the X-ray diffraction section “the formulas fall from a parachute”.
On the characterization by Raman, they write "The most intense peaks correspond to those of ZnO". Whose should they be? If the matrix is ZnO?
In the photoluminescence characterization they write "The NBE emission may be decomposed into three components: 380nm (3.26eV), 270 397nm (3.12eV) and 418nm (2.97eV)" Decomposed? There are three different samples. At what temperature were the spectra obtained?
“could have a contribution of the intraionic emissions 5D3→7F0, with several lines in the range 2.79-2.96eV ???”
The article is not well structured. Authors should rewrite the experimental part and write it more carefully. They must decide whether they intend to write a review article or a quality scientific article.
I do not advise this article for publication.
Authors should use more careful scientific language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The first half of this paper focused on the development of ZnO material science, which is more like a review paper, and the second half focused on a few regular ZnO materials. The innovation and objective are not clear, also the topic does not match the scope of the journal perfectly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer found the idea of the submitted manuscript titled ‘ZnO based materials: from Pauli’s nonsense to a Key Enabling Technology’ interesting and can be published in Photonics. However, before finalizing this article for publication, please see the following points:
Authors are needed to use one notation in the whole text, they are not consistent in it. For example, sometimes authors use fig, or Figure or figure.
In the Figure, authors are requested to use the same way of labels,
Authors have mentioned that ‘ZnO, is the difficulty to obtain p-type material due to self-compensation mechanisms [34]–[38]’. This is very much a debatable topic. You cannot write such a sentence in my opinion. If you want to add this, please include the other possibilities.
Acronyms are always defined after the entire form, however, in this case, they define the acronyms first and then the complete form, such as TCO.
In the second last paragraph of the introduction part, the authors stated the effect of the dopant, However, they have not mentioned the latest paper with the real application;
I am recommending the following two recently published articles to include in the reference list for the best understanding of readers.
(a) Ultraviolet Photodetection Based on High-Performance Co-Plus-Ni Doped ZnO Nanorods Grown by Hydrothermal Method on Transparent Plastic Substrate
(b) High-performance flexible ultraviolet photodetectors with Ni/Cu-codoped ZnO nanorods grown on PET substrates
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision is satisfying.
