Reactive Sputtering Deposition of Epitaxial TiC Film on Si (100) Substrate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a preparation of TiC epitaxial films on Si substrte and their properties. The topic is of interest. Unfortunately, I could not find any figures in the manuscript. Therefore, I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication. Below, there are some comments and suggestions:

1. Abstract: ...TiC (100)[0 1] // Si (100)[0 1] is right?
2. What is the substrate temperature during the deposition? (not found in part 2)
3. Information on deposition time (15 min.) should be in part 2 (Materials and Methods).
4. Formula (1) was taken from Ref. 31, however, the derivation of Formula (1) in [31] is unclear. It is unclear how Poisson’s ratio entered the formula. It is unclear whether the authors of Ref. 31 have derived the formula themselves or they took it from other sources. I recommend to the present authors to try to find another source of the formula (if any).
5. The authors introduce the flow ratio: CH4/(Ar + CH4) but in the further test they refer to the CH4 ratio. It is necessary to unify the usage of the terms.
6. In the sentence, “For the decrease of the deposition rate with CH4 ratio (3% to 5%), it can be reasoned with carbide formation on the target surface with lower sputter yield similar to compound formation on the metallic target for reactive sputtering with oxygen and nitrogen.” , please, could you add a reference for the oxygen and/or nitrogen case.
7. Please, add figures to the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1:

Thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion.
We have carefully corrected those mistakes in the revised manuscript.
And the response is attached.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well-written and the research design is appropriate. 

Please add error bars to figs. 3b, 8 and 9, or specify the standard deviation associated with the data. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Despite the fact that there are no figures in the manuscript, I have read it and give my comments below. For obvious reasons, the article must be subjected to the next round of review. It is a pity that this was not noticed before sending the article for review, because it will extend the time of the publishing procedure.

The article concerns the research on the structure and properties of the TiC coating on Si substrate, which was produced by DC sputtering. A set of tests was carried out, based on which interesting conclusions were made, however, verification of their correctness requires the analysis of figures (photos and plots).

General remarks:

I can't determine how many figures there should be because they are probably not all mentioned in the text. The text also does not specify whether tables should be attached to the manuscript.

I suggest you add a keyword regarding the substrate material.

The introduction section is not long, so it can be expanded by adding detailed information from the group cited references avoiding excessive grouping of sources in one parenthesis. I think it will be beneficial for the clarity of the work and the "story" that the authors should present to the reader.

Lines 61-63: please provide more details about the material.

The Mdpi guidelines impose the use of SI units. For clarity, I suggest to give (in parentheses?) the recalculation for the vacuum pressure expressed in Torr.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2:

Thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion.
We have carefully corrected those mistakes in the revised manuscript.
And the response is attached.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to the referee's comments satisfactorily. After revision of the manuscript (Reactive Sputtering Deposition of Epitaxial TiC Film 2 on Si (100) Substrate) and adding figures, the manuscript is in a good shape. I carefully checked whole the text with the figures and I do not see any significant mistakes or misinterpretations of the experimental results. My overall recommendation is "accept in present form"

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

thank you for considering my comments. After reading the current, supplemented with figures, version of the manuscript, I conclude that it has been significantly improved and can be published in the Coatings journal. The article is well prepared technically and substantively.
When editing the final version of the article, please pay attention to formatting. Change: "Fig." to "Figure" throughout text. In the References section, please write correctly authors' names and surnames and write the issue numbers in italics.