Sol-Gel Processed Yttrium-Doped SnO2 Thin Film Transistors
, Won-Yong Lee 1, Hyunjae Lee 1, Seunghyun Ha 1, Jin-Hyuk Bae 1, In-Man Kang 1, Hongki Kang 2, Kwangeun Kim 3 and Jaewon Jang 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A well-written paper with good and thorough characterisation in general. Please address the following points:
L33: justify the statement:
‘Among these candidates, SnO2 has the highest mobility and transparency.’
The mobilities reported here are 12.7, 7.4, 1.1, and 0.7 cm2/Vs. ZnO has been reported with mobilities higher than 50.
More comment on the potential of SnO2 would be useful. Note that ZnO can be alloyed with high valent elements such as Nb Mg to avoid the use of In and Ga.
L38: not sure electronic properties are ‘excellent’, Perhaps better to say ‘promising’
L169: Please indicate how Vth was extracted using Eqn.2. Also Fig.5e shows a power law dependence rather than exponential, so justify use of Eqn.2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Lee et al presents study of "Sol–Gel Processed Yttrium-Doped SnO2 Thin-Film Transistors".
The manuscript is very well written with clarity. Author's have clearly explained their choice of dopant (Y) and its effect on SnO2 thing film behavior. The findings are very well explained. I recommend the publication as it as (with minor spell check).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
The authors present a study of the effect of Y concentration on the structural, chemical, and electrical properties of sol–gel-processed SnO2 films. They investigated via grazing incidence X-ray diffraction (GIXRD), scanning probe microscopy (SPM), and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and the corresponding electrical transport properties of the film. These studies are interesting but, in my opinion the result are not consolidate by enough scientific explanations and enough physical theoretical support. The results of this study can be better consolidating by the mathematics simulations. I am not sure that the results are reproducible experimental.
1. Better explanation is expected in the introduction to highlight to reason why the authors select these material and what's their potential advantage among the others already reported.
2. More in-depth experimental analyses and discussions are necessary about fabrications and investigations of layers and then the devices. There any surface treatment step before investigations?
3. Some SEM morphology analyses are done to be compared by simulations?
4. In my opinion the layers with high roughness of figure 2 cannot be used in TFT. The conduction is influenced by the size of the crystals. Has this been observed in the electrical measurements made?
5. The first 4 representations of the electrical characteristics in figure 5 seem identical. It only differs the values of the drain current. How do you explain this?
Hope my suggestions are helpful.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Now, the work presented in this manuscript is useful for the scientific community working in this field. All conclusions are correct and supported by the experiment, analysis and discussion. I recommend to publish this manuscript after a short grammar checking.
