Comparison of Self-Assembled Monolayers on SiO2 and Porous SiOCH Dielectrics by Decyltrimethoxysilane Vapor Treatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work presents the synthesis and characterization of SAMs to be used in back-end-of-line Cu interconnects. Minor revision is requested before the work can be considered for publication:
1. The authors should comment on the stability and durability of SAMs.
2. The motivation of the work within the state-of-the-art of the field should be presented in more detail.
Author Response
- The authors should comment on the stability and durability of SAMs. [Reply]: The stability and durability of SAMs on SiO2 and p-SiOCH films had been commented and compared in the abstract and summary!
- The motivation of the work within the state-of-the-art of the field should be presented in more detail. [Reply]: The motivation of this work had been revised in the revised manuscript!
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The attached pdf contains comments and suggestions for revising your paper to enhance clarity and ensure correct grammar and accuracy.
[Reply]: Grammatical and writing style errors in the original version had been corrected again by our colleague who is a native English speaker. In addition, the figures had been re-plotted and revised in order to improve the quality and make it clearer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The attached pdf contains comments and suggestions for revising your paper to enhance clarity and ensure correct grammar and accuracy. Good luck.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The attached pdf contains comments and suggestions for revising your paper to enhance clarity and ensure correct grammar and accuracy. Good luck.
[Reply] Thanks for reviewer’s comment. The errors and grammar issues had been corrected according to reviewer’s comment. Additionally, grammatical and writing style errors in the original version had been corrected again by our colleague who is a native English speaker.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer # : I appreciate the authors for their research work on the "Comparison of Self-Assembled Monolayers on SiO2 and Po-2 rous SiOCH Dielectrics by Decyltrimethoxysilane Vapor Treat-3 ment". However, the following are the major concerns that the authors should address before acceptance.
1. The abstract did not include any results.
2. How does this work differ from the previously reported ??? Novelty of the study should be further highlighted.
3. Why do authors select SiO2 and Po-2 rous SiOCH as experimental systems ??
4. Are all the tests reproducible? How many times the tests were conducted at one condition? All the figures should provide the error bars to present the reproducibility.
5. Why you did not use other more powerful techniques in characterization?
Did you compare the results of this study with your recently published ones?
Author Response
- The abstract did not include any results. [Reply] The abstract summaries the results of this study. "SAMs could successfully form on both SiO2 and p-SiOCH films, thereby enhancing the adhesion and dielectric breakdown field. In the p-SiOCH films, SAMs sealed the surface pores and had higher coverage, promoting effectiveness of Cu barrier. In the Cu/porous low-k integrated interconnects for advanced technological nodes, therefore, SAMs are promising emerging materials acting as barrier and adhesive. On the other hand, for SiO2 films, SAMs weakened barrier, however, it can be acted as an interfacial adhesion enhancer "
- How does this work differ from the previously reported ??? Novelty of the study should be further highlighted. [Reply] The purpose of this study is to compare the differences of SAMs formed on SiO2 and p-SiOCH films used for BEOL interconnects.
- Why do authors select SiO2and Porous SiOCH as experimental systems ??[Reply] The SiO2and Porous SiOCH are the commonly used dielectrics for BEOL interconnects insulators.
- Are all the tests reproducible? How many times the tests were conducted at one condition? All the figures should provide the error bars to present the reproducibility. [Reply] Yes, the tests are reproducible. All Figures in the revised manuscript had error bars to present the reproducibility.
- Why you did not use other more powerful techniques in characterization?
Did you compare the results of this study with your recently published ones?[Reply] This study focus on electrical characterization! In future study, we will try to use other techniques in characterization.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing most of the suggested revisions. There are several un-addressed comments that should be addressed before publication.
Section 2: The comment “Add diagrams (figures) in this section to give the reader a visual idea of the sample architectures and the shapes of the different tested samples. It would also be useful to include illustrations of the process steps to help the reader understand what you have done.” was not addressed.
Section 3: The comment “Break this Chapter into Sections. It is too long. It would be easier to understand in shorter sections, such as 3.1, 3.2, etc.” was not addressed.
Line 131: Ensure that the correct Celsius symbol is used.
Line 144: The suggestion to explain “(network, suboxide, cage)” is still not addressed.
Line 168: The suggestion to add an image showing the stud pull tape tests was not addressed.
Line 260: MIS has still not been defined.
Author Response
Section 2: The comment “Add diagrams (figures) in this section to give the reader a visual idea of the sample architectures and the shapes of the different tested samples. It would also be useful to include illustrations of the process steps to help the reader understand what you have done.” was not addressed.
[Reply] In the experimental part, we had described the processing and the testing structure ( dimension , shape.....} in details.
Section 3: The comment “Break this Chapter into Sections. It is too long. It would be easier to understand in shorter sections, such as 3.1, 3.2, etc.” was not addressed.
Line 131: Ensure that the correct Celsius symbol is used.
[Reply] Celsius symbol is correct!
Line 144: The suggestion to explain “(network, suboxide, cage)” is still not addressed.
[Reply] network, suboxide, cage structures is well-known; So, it is not necessary to explain.
Line 168: The suggestion to add an image showing the stud pull tape tests was not addressed.
[Reply] Thanks for reviewer's suggestion. We had already reported an image showing the stud pull tape tests in our previous published paper. So, we think it is not needed in this paper.
Line 260: MIS has still not been defined.
[Reply] MIS had already been defined in the experimental part!
Reviewer 3 Report
No comment
Author Response
Thanks for reviewer's comment!
