The Impact of AlxGa1−xN Back Barrier in AlGaN/GaN High Electron Mobility Transistors (HEMTs) on Six-Inch MCZ Si Substrate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The recommedations are enclosed here.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The reply letter was attached as a separated letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper shows a study of back barrier in HEMT. Experiements have been duly performed and explained and the results are interesting.
Nevertheless, the English writing must clearly be improved.
L12-14: “While further increasing the AlGaN thickness could deteriorate the device performance because of the generation of lattice mismatch induced surface defects.”
I do not understand this sentence. What is the subject? What is the verb? If it is related to the previous sentence, it should not be written like that.
L15: “indicated” should be “indicates”.
L16-17: “Thus, the reduction of 16 trapping effect and then the improvement of dynamic RON can thus conclusion.”
I do not understand this sentence.
L18: “influenced” should be “influences”.
L22: “dramatic” … why is it dramatic? Is there a problem with the advancements? Is it bad?
L27: “its low operation”. Since we talk about the CMOS Processes, it should be “their low operation”.
L30: “difficult to be high volume production” … should be “produced in high volume” or something similar.
L31: “…HEMET…” … what is HEMET?
L31: ”…is the adopting…” should be “is the adoption…”
L40: you should say that the MCZ “has been found to be of high interest…”
L47: why do you use “Nevertheless”? I do not understand if the thermal barrier is a good or bad thing for the HEMT. Please give more details, even if you explain that later in the paper.
Fig 1(b) : the mole fractions are difficult to read
L79: “more” should be “mole”.
Fig 2: quality of text font is bad, it is difficult to read
L85: “comparable” should be “compared”
L86: “thickness 40nm to 50nm” should be “thickness from 40nm to 50nm”
L88: “and its was concluded that the thick AlGaN B.B. influence the epitaxy quality and the optimized thickness in this study was 50 nm.” Should be rewritten.
L90: “were” should be added before “approximately”.
Fig 3: quality of text font is bad, it is difficult to read
Fig 4: too small
L133: “VDS,Q” why is there a comma? And not on L131? Please be consistent.
L139: “it also effected” should be “it was also affected”
L140: “were injected”. The subject is “hot electrons”
L141: “The dynamic …”: what is the subject and the verb in this sentence? It should be rewritten.
L143: “is increasing.”
L144: “affected”, not “effected”.
L160: “are related”
Author Response
The reply letter was attached as a separated letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
