Optical Recrystallization of Nanocrystalline Silicon Ribbons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I revised the work “Optical Recrystallization of Nanocrystalline Silicon Ribbons”. Overall, this work is interesting and it deserves to be considered to be published in Metals. However few points should be clarified before I recommend its publication.

 See comments below:

 1 – In introduction, clearly build your research hypothesis (straightforward question that is answerable by yes or no). I am not sure this is clear in the manuscript.  2 – Please underscore the novelty of your work in the introduction part. In the introduction, explain the main differences between your work and the ones found in literature.  3 – The main problem statement and justification for the research has not been clearly stated.

 4 – The authors should mention on the concept of this work with the progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies.

5 – The last paragraph of the introduction should be removed. In my opinion, is useless.

6 – In order to investigate the crystalline structure of the silicon ribbons and phase evolution/changes, XRD would be interesting to show. Do the authors agree?

 7 – The discussion is poor and it needs to be further strengthened. A comparison with the literature should be done. Perhaps adding a table, highlighting the main findings in the literature with the findings of this manuscript.

 

8–Please rewrite it and focus on the main concept of the study. After execute the characterization analysis asked by this reviewer, please underscore the main results in the abstract and conclusion sections.

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the comments and issues raised by the reviewer that helped to improve the manuscript. The detailed replies to the reviewer are presented in the file attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describe a research article entitled “Optical Recrystallization of Nanocrystalline Silicon Ribbons”. The topic of the manuscript is interesting, and the manuscript constitutes an interesting article concerning the development of silicon substrates. A short conclusion highlighting the main results of this research article is also provided at the end of the document.

The work is well-written and a well-constructed introduction has been established by the authors. Sufficient spectra and figures are included in the manuscript for comprehension and clarity. Numerous figures in colors have been introduced in the manuscript, rendering the article more attractive. Interesting and convincing results are also presented in this manuscript. Overall, I think that this is a manuscript that I recommend for publication after inclusion of minor revisions.

1) In the conclusion, not perspectives are given for this work. Please develop.

2) In the experimental section, reproduction of the fabrication of the silicon substrates is not easy, on the basis of the description which is given ate present. Please give more details for reproducibility.

3) Concerning the photovoltaics performance, lower performance than the reference device have been obtained. However, not so much explanations are given to explain why counter-performances have been obtained with these materials. Please develop.

4) Concerning the resistivity measurements, no figure is given. Please add.

 

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the comments and issues raised by the reviewer that helped to improve the manuscript. The detailed replies to the reviewer are presented in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the submitted paper to Journal Metals/MDPI entitled “Optical Recrystallization of Nano-Crystalline Silicon Ribbons” by Filipe Serra et al. Solar energy application is an excellent alternative to replace primary energy sources relying on fossil fuels, especially for large-scale installations. Crystalline Silicon with higher efficiency has been an excellent material for PV applications. Silicon wafers play a great role in this application. Different approaches are available worldwide but here in the submitted work the authors have adopted silicon ribbons directly from gaseous feedstock obtained in the CVD step The area of research is significant and appears to be relatively novel.

The work is well presented, and the manuscript is OK with reasonable corresponding physical properties. The work in its present form is publishable but needs some revisions before rendering a final decision. 

The following points need to be considered.

·         How can crystal growth parameters and experimental set-up be tweaked in order to improve the crystalline quality of the silicon ribbons?

·         Would the effect of powder size influence ribbon production?

·         In section 2.1 relating to the p-type semiconductors and material processing techniques/methods, relevant reported works (reported in doi.org/10.1016/j.progsolidstchem.2023.100390; and doi.org/10.3390/nano12244414) need to be included and discussed

·         Is the silicon on dust substrate a new approach?

·         What are the advantages of the ZMR step of the SDS process?

·         Please provide the SDS procedure compared to C-Si technology. Is there any block diagram?

·         The CVD growth on zone recrystallization must be detailed in the appropriate sections.

·         If Figure 3b has been re-used from a previous publication, then it must be mentioned along with appropriate permission must be taken from the publisher.

·         The figure 4 b & c clarity must be improved.

·         What the color contrast seen in ribbons in Figure 6 implies?

·         Page 8, line 294 it says “In Figure 7, the I-V curve of this SDS cell is presented.” Yes, we know but requires careful analysis and explanation.

 

·         The merits of CVD must be addressed in the section conclusion

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the comments and issues raised by the reviewer that helped to improve the manuscript. The detailed replies to the reviewer are presented in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I went through the revised version of the manuscript titled “Optical Recrystallization of Nano-crystalline Silicon Ribbons” by J. M. Serra et al. In this reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript has been very poorly revised and lacks originality.

How does the current work advance the existing knowledge of one of the author’s previous works published in AIP Conference Proceedings in 2019 entitled “Zone Melting Recrystallization of Microcrystalline Silicon Ribbons Obtained by Chemical Vapor Deposition”. In the submitted work, it appears there is no standalone novelty rather some incremental work has been carried out. Strictly speaking, the manuscript should be rejected. Unless otherwise, the authors completely revise the introduction and make substantial efforts to reinforce the objectives of this work and how it differs from the work already published. (including doi.org/10.1002/pssa.201870037)

·         The lines “58-60” in the introduction make little sense.

·         Moreover, the clarity of figures 1, 2, and 4 must be improved substantially. The texts are not legible.

·         The revised part of section 3.1.3 reads badly. The mistakes must be fixed.

·         Line 307: “The solar cell parameters for the best solar cells of each group are presented in Table 2” Is it correct?

·         Line 318: “In Figure 7, the I-V curve of this SDS cell is presented.” Is it correct? Where is Figure 7?

·         The discussion part in Section 4 looks as though it is like a book article rather original paper.

·         Poor referencing and its style make things worse,

Overall, the authors paid no attention to revising the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the comments and issues raised by the reviewer that helped to improve the manuscript. The detailed replies to the reviewer are presented below.

1- How does the current work advance the existing knowledge of one of the author’s previous works published in AIP Conference Proceedings in 2019 entitled “Zone Melting Recrystallization of Microcrystalline Silicon Ribbons Obtained by Chemical Vapor Deposition?

The main advance presented in this manuscript is the production of solar cells on SDS silicon ribbons.  In fact, it was demonstrated that silicon ribbons grown by CVD over microcrystalline-size silicon powder, followed by a zone-melting crystallization can be used as solar cells substrates, the proof concept was thus achieved.

2- The lines “58-60” in the introduction make little sense

It is not easy to understand what the reviewer means. The mentioned paragraph was introduced in the second version of the manuscript to address one of the reviewers’ requests, to underline the novelty of our work.

3- Moreover, the clarity of figures 1, 2, and 4 must be improved substantially. The texts are not legible.

Figures 1 and 2 were enlarged so that the texts are easier to read. Also, the captions and images of Figure 4 were enlarged.

4- The revised part of section 3.1.3 reads badly. The mistakes must be fixed.

Note: The authors realized that in section 3.3 there were as mistake in the subsection numbering, which was corrected, the mentioned subsection is now 3.3.3. The authors revised the text and restructured this subsection to make it more readable.

5- The solar cell parameters for the best solar cells of each group are presented in Table 2” Is it correct?

In fact, in Table 2 we present the main solar cell parameters (Voc, Isc, FF, Eff) for the best control and SDS cells. The word ‘main’ was added to the mentioned sentence, to underline the fact that only the main parameters are presented.

6- In Figure 7, the I-V curve of this SDS cell is presented.” Is it correct? Where is Figure 7?

There was a mistake in the numbering of the figure, which is now corrected.

7- The discussion part in Section 4 looks as though it is like a book article rather original paper.

As authors, we are not sure what to take from this remark. We would like to emphasize that all the text was originally written for this manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

This reviewer went through the revised version of the submitted article. Before rendering any decision, the following discrepancies must be addressed. The authors are very reluctant to make any valid changes to the manuscript. If this continues, the contributed work will eventually recommend for rejection.

The comments are below,

•             Figure 2 SDS experimental process diagram is exactly the same as one of the author’s works published earlier (DOI: 10.1002/pssa.201701052), this was also Figure 2.  Except for the word “FZ” versus “ZMR” the flow chart is identical. This reviewer understands that in the published work this was a floating zone recrystallization, but the technique used is the same. Better to remove this figure (it is a self-plagiarism) and cite the article.

•             Figure 3b is the same as that of Figure 4 in the published article DOI: 10.1002/pssa.201701052. Better to remove this too.

•             Table 2, the data provided for the SDS sample is the same as that of the author’s work published earlier doi.org/10.1063/1.5123895 in which it was Table 1. There is no point in reproducing it again without any prior permission. Better to remove this table and cite the article.

•             In table 1, the unit for dopant concentration is cm-3, but in text (line 313) it says cm3. Hope the authors understood the difference between the two.

•             Section 3.3.1 does not qualify to be a sub-section, just with three lines providing the thickness value.

•             In section 1, last paragraph (lines 63 – 64) it says, “in section 3 the main results are presented, and in section 4 we draw some conclusions and suggest future developments.” Actually, this is not the case. Section 4 is the discussion and section 5 is the conclusion.

•             There are heaps of syntax errors throughout the manuscript that must be fixed.

Overall, there is no originality/significance in the current work. The authors have just put their two works (published earlier) together and made the current paper, which could be incremental work without adding any knowledge to the scientific community.

The final decision is up to the editor and the publisher. I will leave it with them.

 

 

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the work of the reviewer which allowed a further improvement of the manuscript. The answers to the issues raised are detailed below.

1- Figure 2 SDS experimental process diagram is exactly the same as one of the author’s works published earlier (DOI: 10.1002/pssa.201701052), this was also Figure 2.  

To address this issue we made a new version of Figure 2, which substantially differs from the original one, being equivalent in terms of content.

2- Figure 3b is the same as that of Figure 4 in the published article DOI: 10.1002/pssa.201701052. 

It is in fact a different photograph of the ZMR furnace, from which the authors are the exclusive copyright owners. 

3- Table 2, the data provided for the SDS sample is the same as that of the author’s work published earlier doi.org/10.1063/1.5123895 in which it was Table 1. 

In Table 2 we present the solar cell results that were never presented elsewhere. We believe that the reviewer is referring to Table 1, which in fact reproduces some of the results of the bibliographic reference [14]. This reference was added to the caption of Table 1.

4- In table 1, the unit for dopant concentration is cm-3, but in text (line 313) it says cm3. Hope the authors understood the difference between the two.

In the new manuscript version, this typo was corrected.

5- Section 3.3.1 does not qualify to be a sub-section, just with three lines providing the thickness value.

Based on this suggestion, all the subsubsections of subsection 3.3 were dropped and replaced by simple titles.

6- In section 1, last paragraph (lines 63 – 64) it says, “in section 3 the main results are presented, and in section 4 we draw some conclusions and suggest future developments.” Actually, this is not the case. Section 4 is the discussion and section 5 is the conclusion.

In the new version of the manuscript, this paragraph was corrected and now gives a correct description of the manuscript structure.

7- There are heaps of syntax errors throughout the manuscript that must be fixed.

The manuscript was thoroughly reviewed, and some errors were detected and corrected. We believe that the overall quality of the writing was improved.