Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, Authors continue their  investigations presented in [15,16] of the antireflection microstructure properties of the GaSe crystal. They produce the antireflection microstructure on the surfaces of  GaSe crystal by pulse femtosecond laser ablation technique.  

My remarks to the authors:

Remark #1

The Figure 3, is not understandable. What is the meaning of “parameters”, on the  horizontal axis (unit of this axis)?

Cyrillic letters are used in the caption of this figure and elsewhere (e.g. line 162).

Remark #2

Please explain the idea of “crosspoint wavelength” that values your presented in Table 1.

Remark #3

Please discuss the meaning of the WL parameter presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Remark #4

What means the parameter x₂ in numerical simulation chapter 3.5?

Remark #5

Conclusion are not interesting and short. I would expect a more in-depth analysis of some  your interesting experimental results presented in this paper.

In my opinion the presented article is continuation of your investigation presented in [15,16] (The same laser technique was used to fabricate the microstructure and transform the optical properties of the GaSe crystal, the same characterization methods were also used.  Please compare results obtained at this paper  and your papers [15, 16] and comment them).

Author Response

Please find in the attcahed file our response to the rewievers remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This work by Alexander Yelisseyev et al demonstrates that a modification of antireflection microstruction (ARM) on the GaSe crystal surface could increase the transmission in infrared range.  A GaSe plate with ARM fabricated on both sides enables an transmission increase from 65% up to 94% at ≈10 μm. It shows a highest record compared to these previous reports[15][16].  Overall, I think this report is organized in a logic way. This fs laser writing technique for enhancing the crystal transmission is very controllable and very promising, therefore I suggest to the accept with answering the following questions:

Figure 12 where is (2, 4) and (1, 3), I suggest to insert a legend, for (a) GaSe 80K(black), GaSe 300K(red), for (b) GaSe 80K(black), GaSe 300K(red); Here, (a) and (b) indicated that in room temperature the different between ARM GaAe and un-ARM GaSe is more obvious. But for (c) what is the temperature condition of the PL measurement?

 

In the simulation, you are using the geometry depicted in Figure 15(b), which is a one side ARM, so how do you compare with the ARM both sides?  Here the simulated thickness of the crystal is 3 μm, did you measure the thickness of the actual GaSe plates sample? How do you think the thickness affect the transmission results? Hint: you can just check it with the simulation.  I also checked your previous work [16], where the GaSe plate thickness is 1mm, however you missed to include the thickness in section 2 in this manuscript. 

Author Response

Please find in the attcahed file our response to the rewievers remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx