Fabrication of Circular Defects in 2-Dimensional Photonic Crystal Lasers with Convex Edge Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

In this study, a two-dimensional PhC structure including a circular defect is proposed and fabricated. The manuscript needs to be greatly polished based on the following comments.

1. The theory and physical issues and the reasons for the improvement of the results are not discussed and only a manufacturing process is explained which leads to the results. In order to be able to confirm a research, it must be accompanied by correct scientific and theoretical relations.

2. The obtained results are not compared with other works and no validation is provided. It is necessary to provide a table comparing the important output parameters compared to other works and to show physically or mathematically why the improvement of the results in this work is claimed.

3. No information has been given about how to confine and guide the light. It is necessary to discuss the light confinement factor and its percentage.

4. What is the photonic bandgap of the structure? What is the polarization of incoming light?

5. How height are the holes? Draw the light cone of the structure.

6. What is the laser drive current?

7. Give the effective refractive index for the waveguide mode of the structure. Based on the microscopic shape of the structure, it seems that there are many edge losses in the holes. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate and give the vertical axis of figure 6, because the transmission of the structure is very important, but you have not discussed it.

8. Adding defects creates modes in the bandgap. Draw the modes associated with the defects.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors report their work on reducing the effect of the cleaving point by introducing a convex structure at the edge of the membrane. The fundamental work was reported in Ref. 37 (doi:10.1587/elex.20.20230054) and the simulation work was reported in Ref. 36 (doi: 10.1002/pssa.202300579), which greatly reduces the novelty of this work. Besides, the authors claim that the added new feature effectively prohibits the effect from the cleaving point, but only one set of experimental results was shown. The authors should include more experimental data, e.g., measurement results collected from samples cleaved at different points, to support the key conclusion of this paper. Considering the research topic falls within the journal’s scope, the manuscript can be reconsidered if the authors can provide more experimental data. Some additional comments:

1. The opening statement of this paper claims that the rapid development of generative AI and electric vehicles is the primary cause of the semiconductor shortage. However, this assertion is either inaccurate or at least controversial. A more rigorous phrasing might be: 'The development of generative AI and electric vehicles has significantly contributed to the semiconductor shortage.', or something like this.

2. In the top-view SEM image of the sample (Figure 4), it is evident that some of the holes are blocked by unknown particles. Additionally, the shape and size of the holes appear inconsistent. How did the authors evaluate the quality of the test sample? Did the authors check the uniformity of the micro-holes prior to the optical measurement?

3. As mentioned above, please include additional results from different samples cleaved at various points. This is crucial for supporting the main claim of this paper.

 

4. In Figure 6, when the input power is low (48 μW), the signal appears very noisy. It would be better if the authors calculated and included the signal-to-noise ratio in the figure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

The authors have addressed the comments so I recommend the revised manuscript for publication.

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

all concerns addressed