A Study on Sputtering of Copper Seed Layer for Interconnect Metallization via Molecular Dynamics Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the research could be interesting to the readers of Applied Sciences. Despite extensive research in this area, the current manuscript is original, and I would recommend “Publish after major modifications”. My suggestions are as following:
- The background survey of the current research is noticeably dated and does not cover the recent research in the area. There are several publications in recent years discussing similar significant parameters such as temperature effects on deposition and Cu thin film performance as diffusion barrier layer. Authors are advised to modify the literature review and introduction to accommodate more recent research works.
- In Figure 2, authors are showing the trench and the three layers of the substrate are colour coded. These layers are introduced inside the text, but please annotate the figure and show the layers on the figure as well. It might be better to increase the font size, so it is legible for readers.
- As a less frequent user of LAMMPS, the set-up in figure 2 is not clear to me. I would imagine this would be the case for readers in similar position. Temperature is modified in thermal control layer, but authors have not described how temperature variations in this layer is interpreted in the free motion layer and at their interface. Could you please clarify this in the manuscript?
- Temperatures are reported in C and K. Kelvin unit is K and not k by the way. Could authors please use one unit consistently and make sure the unit symbols are correct?
- Figures 6, 12, 18, 24: the graphs are too small and not easy to read. Could you please improve the quality of this figure?
- Throughout figures 7-10, authors have clearly discussed the trends and results. What is the concluding point from these though? Which substrate temperature is better finally and why? Similarly, throughout figures 13-15, 3-5 ev energy range gives better bottom coverage. What is the finding/conclusion in terms of the best incident energy? Similarly, figures 29-33, what is the optimal case. Higher alloy percentage means better coverage/design? It is better to conclude in each case where the optimum is. Do not leave it to the reader to decide. Similarly in the conclusion, authors describe the trends but do not propose/recommend lets say which combinations should be used by a manufacturer/designer for the best results!
Author Response
Thank you for valuable comments and helpful suggestions. The article was revised accordingly. Reply to the comments is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the paper is very interesting. It could be accepted for publication after correction of some misprints listed below:
1) Line 126: Probably here is a misprint, should be Substrate
2) Line 176, 183: Please write copper or Cu instead of Copper
3) Line 192: You assume temperature in Kelvins. So change it here to 350 K, 500 K, etc.
4) Line 194: Should be 5 eV. Units should be separated from numbers by space through the paper. Please make also corresponding corrections below in the paper.
5) Line 522. Please move the text from "Acknowledgements" to "Funding"
Author Response
The article was revised according the review comments. Thank you for valuable comments and helpful suggestions. The reply to reviewer's comments is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank authors for implementing the recommended changes. The figure qualities are improved and addition of the tables in the concluding remarks is very clear and supports their arguments. I would recommend publishing this manuscript as it is.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your comments and suggestion to improve the resulting article. The final article will be submitted for publication after English check and Editor's comments on writing comments.
Kind Regards
