Tunneling Current Variations in Small-Sized Devices Based on a Compact Threshold Voltage Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A separate Word File is attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Spelling errors. Suggestions concerning acronyms and notations are listed in a Word file.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing my paper and providing valuable comments and suggestions. I will carefully consider your guidance and make appropriate improvements in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your first question, “Authors should consider providing the full form of the acronyms used at their first instance, no matter how routinely used. “
The authors added a list of abbreviations in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your second question, “Considering the numerous notations and terminologies involved with the modeling, it would be apt to consider moving the NMOSFET figure and defining parameters under consideration at the beginning of Section 2, rather than at a later stage.”
The authors made corresponding modifications as requested in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your third question, “The relevance of the research in the current state-of-the-art chips produced and mitigation of short channel effects if stated explicitly with examples will increase the level of importance of the present research work. “
The authors added the required content in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your fourth question “Spell check and use of standard tools such as Grammarly to make sentences concise improve reader understanding. Eg. Barrier “lowing” – in place of lowering on line 24… not all spellings have been listed. “
The authors utilized the standard tool Grammarly for spell checking.
Regarding your fifth question, “Equations stated in the sentences should not spill over two lines, equations should not be broken over two lines. Eg. line 99, 133, 142 “.
The authors made revisions in the revised manuscript.
Thank you once again for your review and guidance.
Best regards,
Sincerely, the Author
Reviewer 2 Report
The research paper entitled “A Small-Sized Device Tunneling Current Variation Based on 2
Compact Threshold Voltage Model” was discussed a comprehensive physical model for the threshold voltage of strained Si NMOSFETs using the gradual channel approximation and quasi-two-dimensional analysis, by solving the Poisson equation, which appeared in the introduction, discussion, and figures. However, there are some points that must be carried out before acceptance.
· The conclusion part is poor, and it needs to be enhanced to clarify the output results.
The authors ask to rewrite the abstract and it should be included best results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing my paper and providing valuable comments and suggestions. I will carefully consider your guidance and make appropriate improvements in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your first question, “The conclusion part is poor, and it needs to be enhanced to clarify the output results. “
In conclusion, the authors provided the shift of the threshold voltage (in %) in small devices with respect to large devices. Additionally, the figure illustrating the variation of threshold voltage with channel width was included.
Regarding your second question, “The authors ask to rewrite the abstract and it should be included best results.”
The authors have rewritten the abstract in the revised manuscript.
Thank you once again for your review and guidance.
Best regards,
Sincerely, the Author
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors solve Poisson equations to find the threshold voltage in short-channel MOSFETs. They simulate some realistic devices and also study tunneling IV characteristics.
The paper is of some interest for the developers of strained Si electronics.
However several issued do not allow to publish the paper in the present form:
- The "experiment" in this paper is the numerical modelling. In real devices however there always exist a disorder. For example, there are charge traps. Moreover, quantum effects and effects of finite temperature should be taken into account. The authors completely neglect these issues. Without proper discussion why the model is relevant the paper could not be published.
Some of these issues, including disorder, are included into phenomenological parameters. Unfortunately there is no proper discussion.
- The results are not formulated explicitly. The abstract reads: "These two models provide important references for the analysis and design of strained Si large-scale integrated circuits." The same statement is repeated in Conclusion section. The conclusion should give some particular figures, for example the shift of the threshold voltage (in %) in small devices with respect to large devices.
- introduction has to place the research into the context, explain its importance, and absence of such studies. How broadly is strained epitaxial Si used. Now the introduction is too short.
Minor issues:
- Abbreviation list is absent
- extra symbols appear in the text
- Abstract: "...physical phenomena such as short-channel, narrow-channel, non-uniform doping...". These are not phenomena.
- overall English quality requires improvement
The language quality is not high. A rather limited amount of words and grammar is exploited.
Long sentences.
Some words are used too often in the neighboring sentences, e.g. "fully", "parameters", "current" etc. The authors shoud use synonyms if possible.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing my paper and providing valuable comments and suggestions. I will carefully consider your guidance and make appropriate improvements in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your first question, “The "experiment" in this paper is the numerical modelling. In real devices however there always exist a disorder. For example, there are charge traps. Moreover, quantum effects and effects of finite temperature should be taken into account. The authors completely neglect these issues. Without proper discussion why the model is relevant the paper could not be published. “
In the article, the questions you raised were taken into consideration, as shown in the parameters in Table 1. Firstly, experimental results of parameter extraction were obtained, and based on these results, the physical model in the article was established. The extracted parameters truly reflect the specific process’s impact on the model parameters. Among them, VTH0 reflects the effects of charge trapping, quantum effects, and other factors on the device model. Therefore, this model indeed reflects the experimental results.
Regarding your second question, “The results are not formulated explicitly. The abstract reads: "These two models provide important references for the analysis and design of strained Si large-scale integrated circuits." The same statement is repeated in Conclusion section. The conclusion should give some particular figures, for example the shift of the threshold voltage (in %) in small devices with respect to large devices. “
The author made additions in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your third question, “introduction has to place the research into the context, explain its importance, and absence of such studies. How broadly is strained epitaxial Si used. Now the introduction is too short. “
The author added the required content in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your fourth question “Abbreviation list is absent “.
The author added a list of abbreviations in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your fifth question, “extra symbols appear in the text “.
The author made revisions in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your sixth question, “Abstract: "...physical phenomena such as short-channel, narrow-channel, non-uniform doping...". These are not phenomena. “
The author made revisions in the revised manuscript.
Regarding your seventh question, “overall English quality requires improvement “
The authors utilized the standard tool Grammarly for spell checking.
Thank you once again for your review and guidance.
Best regards,
Sincerely, the Author
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisfied with a detailed response of the authors. They indeed improved the manuscript.
Language was much improved though it is still not perfect.
