Total and Differential Sputtering Yields Explored by SRIM Simulations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After a careful peer-reviewing process, I must inform you that, the subject of this paper is interesting and can be considered for publication in the journal after a MAJOR REVISION. I believe that the paper contains relevant information for the scientific community focused on sputter deposition and ion etching techniques. I believe that the results are informative but must be well organized and improved in the next revision(s). Therefore, there are some questions about this submission and some revisions are necessary for this work. The major/minor issues are indicated as follows:
1. Typos and minor grammar errors are common in the manuscript. A considerable number of sentences are not comprehensible, some of which can be due to typos or grammar errors. Careful proofreading is mandatory for this case.
2. The abstract is not well written and too detailed. It must be summarized as well. Please revise this section.
3. The state-of-the-art needs to be described more in the “Introduction”. Please revise the last paragraph of this section.
4. The new findings related to this work focused on sputter deposition and ion etching techniques should be stated in the introduction clearly.
5. Please provide the manufacturer/model/code and also the manufacturer country of the raw materials as well as all testing equipment used for evaluations.
6. Authors must show which questions/problems have been answered in this work. In this case, the correct and detailed information about this study must be provided in this manuscript.
7. In this manuscript, results are well presented, but discussion on the obtained results must be completely provided in this manuscript. As can be seen, a “comprehensive” and “comparative” discussion is missed in this work. This should be provided as well.
8. Please provide major findings in the “Conclusions” section with a bullet-point style.
9. There is no description of the future plans for research in the first part of the “Conclusions” section. This should be completed in this section.
10. Recently published references are beneficial for this work. Please check and use new references focused on your work.
11. Also, please double-check and revise the reference list according to the journal requirements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled "Total and differential sputtering yields explored by SRIM simulations" show a systematic theoretical study about sputtering yield and distribution of several elements under ion bombardment at different energies and configurations. Unfortunately, I cannot see in the manuscript relevant innovative information and cannot be considered for a publication in research article.
Few more comments about the manuscript:
The paper is well written but too long for the information showed.
Is not clear why the surface binding energy need to be modified to fit the experimental data. Is true that material properties are influenced sometime by many factors, but I cannot agree to change the material parameters to fit the experimental data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper examines the total and differential sputtering yields for the transition metals in periods 4–6 and groups 4–6 (Ti, et. al) and group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) of the periodic table, and other elements relevant for sputtering (B, C, Al, Si). For the transition metals, the total sputtering yield increases with the group of the periodic table. Elements with the lowest sputtering yield are in group 4 (i.e., Ti, Zr, Hf) and with the highest in group 11 (i.e., Cu, Ag, Au). The angular distribution of sputtered atoms shows a cosine distribution for the transition metal atoms. For oblique ion incidence, the angular distribution of sputtered atoms is more asymmetric for lower ion energies and more symmetric for higher ion energies. The symmetry also depends on the group of the periodic table and the atomic mass of the target material. Elements in group 4 show the most asymmetric distribution while elements in group 11 show the most symmetric distribution. Furthermore, in an individual group, the distribution becomes more symmetric with heavier target elements. This paper also examines in detail the influence of the surface binding energy, atomic mass, and ion energy on the total sputtering yield. These parameters are analyzed with regard to the simplified analytical formula for the total sputtering yield derived by Sig-mund. Based on SRIM simulations and experimental data this formula was modified by introducing a power fitting parameter, which accounts for the non-linear dependence of sputtering yield on the ion energy. The equation provides good estimates for the total sputtering yield of transition metals sputtered by argon ions with energies up to 1000 eV. But why is the equation can not provide good estimates for the total sputtering yield of transition metals 29 sputtered by argon ions with energies form 1000 eV to 1200eV?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I am just pointing out some aspects that need improvement. The work should be more precise and more concise. Requires linguistic correction. Below are just a few of my comments.
Line 10: abbreviation SRIM-expand
Line 35-36: requires linguistic correction
Line 37-38; what the recoiled atoms are? This sentence should be clearer. We are dealing with ions and atoms. Are these the same elements?
Line 47: onto the substrate ? Probably “to the substrate”
Line 47-48: The sentence is quite obvious and trivial
Line 68-70: requires linguistic correction.
Line 121; abbreviations DCMS, HiPIMS etc. –should be expand in the place where they appear for the first time.
Line 155: And before. The term "single element" should be replaced with another for clarity because we are not dealing with a single (one) atom
Lien 180-194. dDefine more precisely as for example:
displacement energy is the minimum kinetic energy that an atom in a solid needs to be permanently displaced from its lattice site to a defect position
binding energy is the smallest amount of energy required to remove a particle from a system of particles or to disassemble a system of particles into individual part
Fig.2. the text below the picture should be corrected
Line 243: Ni is number of argon atoms (ions) ?
Line 243-253; requires linguistic correction
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No more comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comments
Reviewer 4 Report
My comments have been taken into account
