Analysis of Electromagnetic Interference Effect on Semiconductor Scanning Electron Microscope Image Distortion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Very good paper.
2. Please check the citing style in the text. Should be consistent in numbering style.
3. Replace Figure 3 with clear picture. The existing figure is blur.
Author Response
Dear,
First, we sincerely appreciate your meticulous comments and pertinent questions. We have answered to your questions and corrected the erroneous parts you have pointed out. Please kindly find the attached file. Again, thank you for your great advices and efforts.
Sincerely,
You-Jin Park
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting from both a scientific and practical point of view. The results obtained are well substantiated theoretically and confirmed experimentally. The presentation style meets the requirements for scientific articles. A detailed comparative analysis of solutions to similar problems by other researchers is provided. I believe that the article can be published in the presented form.
Author Response
Dear,
We sincerely appreciate your kind comment. Please kindly find the revised manuscript attached. Again, thank you very much for your great comment.
Sincerely,
You-Jin Park
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsElectromagnetic interference is one of the primary issues in electronic image capturing. Unknown interference would cause distortion and sometimes may provide improper processed images. In this work, the authors considered several denoising and edge detection algorithms and then extracted five measures to quantify the image distortion caused by EMI in semiconductor scanning electron microscope images. This work is of importance in terms of accurate image processing. The paper is well written.
I only have one suggestion.
It would be better if the authors make the previous work description brief and precise.
Author Response
Dear,
First, we sincerely appreciate your meticulous comment. So, we revised the manuscript you pointed out. Please kindly find the revised manuscript attached. Again, thank you very much for your kind comment.
Sincerely,
You-Jin Park
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic is very interesting, and the manuscript is well-written. I have the following minor suggestions:
1. Introduction: Lines 31-46- Authors have stated some previous work related to the topic. This is generic information that should be summed up in a tabular form.
2. Abstract: As the authors have mentioned in line 13, "In this research, we aim to detect and quantify the distortion degree of semiconductor SEM (scanning electron microscope) images caused by EMI,” the abstract must include quantitative outcomes.
3. Lines 50 &51- defining the extend and solidity index is better.
4. Line 114- do you mean ‘non-linear’?
5. Experimental analysis- It is better to draw a flowchart, including all steps used for image processing.
6. No references for figures 1 & 2 in the text. Please include.
7. Line 245 & 246- Explain how. Similarly, lines 249 & 250- explain how.
8. Line 261-263- What do the outcomes of Figure 3 imply?
9. Figure 3- Image quality needs to be improved. No text is readable clearly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Dear,
First, we sincerely appreciate your meticulous comments and pertinent questions. We have answered to your questions and corrected many erroneous parts you have pointed out. Please kindly find the revised manuscript attached. Again, thank you very much for your great comments.
Sincerely,
You-Jin Park
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, authors provide a detection method to quantify the distortion degree of semiconductor SEM images caused by EMI. Various denoising algorithms and edge detection methods have been used and studied to evaluate the denoise capability, and selected technique were applied for the EMI degree detection. Analysis from this manuscript show the effectiveness of detection methods on all five shape-related measurements. While the paper is quite clear, it could be further improved by the following suggestions and discussions.
1. Authors studied and compared the effect of various denoising methods and algorithms for image processing. However the image objects used for denoising is relative simple and binary. I am interested the performance of these denoising algorithms in more complicated SEM/AFM features and wonder if Guassian filter would be still better. Same thing for the edge detecting methods, if the edge is more irregular, would Scharr X filter still perform best? Related to that, why authors used Canny rather than Scharr X filter in the later SEM images studies and EMI degree quantify?
2. The resolution of Figure 3 is low in the manuscript, and it's hard to recognize the axis scale and label. Authors should replace it with better figure. Also authors should provide more explanation of the definition of high, medium, weak EMI, and probably give the example of high/medium/weak EMI effect within SEM images, which would help readers to comprehend.
3. I am also interested when applying filter and denoising methods in this study, did authors use spatial or frequency domain process. Most of filter could be applied in both frequency and spatial domain, and it might be faster to process in spatial domain since edge is local properties, but just wonder how authors process these images for all analysis.
4. The reference numbers are redundant in the References section, please double check, probably is automatic composing or numbering issue.
Author Response
Dear,
First, we sincerely appreciate your meticulous comments and pertinent questions. We have answered to your questions and corrected many erroneous parts you have pointed out. Please kindly find the revised manuscript attached. Again, thank you very much for your great comments and questions.
Sincerely,
You-Jin Park
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting and meaningful, but some revisions need to be made, as follows.
1. Please check the English translation again, because even in the abstract there is a problem: "...it is shown that the all the measures are significantly effective...".
2. If I understand well, you have mixed several already known methods to describe the image distortion in the SEM analysis. It is not very clear what is the novelty of this paper. Please be more specific.
3. Introduction chapter: I suggest that you do not include many references to a general proposition, but only 2 or 3 of them and explain why. See references 4-12.
4. On page 2, in the second paragraph, you included the Gaussian filter in the nonlinear filters, but in the next paragraph you called it a linear method. Please correct this.
5. For all equations that are not original, you need to add proper references (example: equation (1)-(7)). Check all equations.
6. In my opinion, this article is a mixture between an original paper and a review paper. If this is not a review paper, then you need to shorten chapters 2 and 3 and include them in the Introduction chapter.
7. You have to give the experimental details, e.g. for which type of semiconductor did you extract the experimental data, if they are original data or taken from which references and so on.
8. It will be useful to introduce uncertainties in tables.
9. Figure 3 is not clear. Can you improve it?
10. Some discussion is appropriate for the meaning of the data in tables.
11. Conclusions are not supported by discussion of authors' findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMust be checked again, especially the abstract.
Author Response
Dear,
First, we sincerely appreciate your meticulous comments and pertinent questions. We have answered to your questions and corrected many erroneous parts you have pointed out. Please kindly find the revised manuscript attached. Again, thank you very much for your great comments and questions.
Sincerely,
You-Jin Park
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors addressed all the comments and suggestions from reviewers thoroughly, and added in more explanation of denoising process in the experimental analysis part. I have no further comments and recommend publish in present form in Applied Sciences.
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
You have replied to all my comments. Perhaps it would be better to include the explanation of the novelty of the work in the text.
