Edelstein Effect in Isotropic and Anisotropic Rashba Models
, Mattia Trama 1,2, Alfonso Maiellaro 1,3, Claudio Guarcello 1,4, Francesco Romeo 1,4 and Roberta Citro 1,3,4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the Referee for the very useful comments. The authors attach a PDF file with responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigate spin-to-charge conversion in a 2D Rashba electron gas. The Edelstein effects have been studied, and the anisotropic model has been used. The topic of the paper is relevant and can help elucidate the experimental data. The authors used the anisotropic model which was not previously described. The only control is a comparison with the experimental data. The conclusions are consistent with the content of the manuscript. The references are appropriate. Chemical potential μ ought to be described in Fig.2, not in Fig.3. The authors have to control the system of equations (5) and (6). There ought to be 4 solutions and in the manuscript are described only 3 solutions.
Author Response
We thank the Referee for the very useful comments. The authors attach a PDF file with responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee report on the manuscript `Edelstein effect in isotropic and anisotropic Rashba models’ by I. Gaiardoni et a. (ref. condensedmatter-3493941)
This manuscript investigates both analytically and semi-analytically the direct and inverse Edelstein effect (DEE, IEE) in a free electron model with Rashba spin-orbit coupling (RSOC). For the DEE the authors provide an analysis of the Edelstein susceptibility, while for the IEE the authors describe a semiclassical Boltzmann approach. While this second part mainly has a methodological interest, the first part reports the interesting finding that anisotropies may substantially enhance the DEE (fig. 5), with the electron mass anisotropy being more effective than the RSOC anisotropy.
The paper is technically sound, physically interesting, and the presentation is clear and the appendices are rather complete and exhaustive, but there are a few points that the authors should consider:
- the finding that the Edelstein susceptibility grows linearly with the RSOC seems to me rather obvious. Do I miss something? Why the authors give so much emphasis to this result (see fig. 3)? They should explain why.
- The results on anisotropy effect in the DEE, being physically interesting, should be mentioned in the abstract.
- The authors only investigate the case of a C2v anisotropy. It would be interesting to investigate the effect of a C4v anisotropy by superimposing the elliptic Fermi surfaces along x and y: Do the two anisotropic contributions fully compensate each other or a residual increase persists? What happens when a small mixing between the two FS is introduced (as it happens in the LAO/STO interfaces (see e.g. PRL 119, 256801 (2017))? Some remarks on this issue might be interesting.
- The Boltzmann approach of the IEE is interesting and it would be interesting to use it to explore the effects of anisotropies also for the IEE. The use of Onsager reciprocity relations could be useful to test the reliability of the approach in comparison with the direct calculation adopted for the DEE. Some remarks might enrich the discussion part.
- Some misprints are still present and should be corrected.
Once these minor points will be considered, this manuscript will be well suitable to be published as a regular article in Condensed Matter.
Author Response
We thank the Referee for the very useful comments. The authors attach a PDF file with responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript develops a Boltzmann-equation approach to the direct and inverse Edelstein effect within a Rashba model that allows for the anisotropy of the surface. The paper is interesting as it presents an important step towards a quantitative description of the spin current to charge current conversion, which is an important problem in spintronics.
The manuscript is well written and carefully proofread (only line 6: "the the"), so I can basically recommend its publication in the present form. However, it would be helpful for the reader if the authors explained in more detail the boundary conditions imposed on g and w: (e.g., line 186: "We note that the external force term is absent in Eq. (13) due to our boundary conditions.")
Author Response
We thank the Referee for the very useful comments. The authors attach a PDF file with responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
