Introducing Corrections to the Reflectance of Graphene by Light Emission

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have performed a detailed analysis of the reflectance of graphene light emission, focusing on modeling and experimental confirmation of the models. The work is well conceived and presented and is a significant contribution to this field.

The chapters are defined well and give a good description of the applied basic model, followed by experimental work, comparison and introduction of the new aspects introducing light emission properties based on layers.

I recommend this work for publication in its present form, with only a slight title change.

I suggest maybe a slight correction to the title: Introducing corrections to the reflectance of graphene light emission

 

Author Response

We appreciate the referee for dedicating valuable time to review our manuscript. We concur with the referee's feedback on the title and have accordingly made the necessary corrections. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, “Corrections to the reflectance of graphene by light emission”, the authors formulated the light emission properties of multilayer graphene composed of tens to hundreds of layers using a transfer matrix method and confirm the method’s validity experimentally. I commend the authors for their work and I recommend the manuscript published with the following minor revisions. Please check:

1. Why did the authors choose as “N” as the values in Figure 1 to carry out experiments and calculations.

2. Why are the results of Exp.(run2) and Exp.(run3) completely consistent in Figure A1?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the manuscript, “Corrections to the reflectance of graphene by light emission”, the authors formulated the light emission properties of multilayer graphene composed of tens to hundreds of layers using a transfer matrix method and confirm the method’s validity experimentally. I commend the authors for their work and I recommend the manuscript published with the following minor revisions. Please check:

1. Why did the authors choose as “N” as the values in Figure 1 to carry out experiments and calculations.

2. Why are the results of Exp.(run2) and Exp.(run3) completely consistent in Figure A1?

Author Response

We extend our gratitude to the referee for dedicating valuable time to review our manuscript. We value the insightful comments provided by the referee. Our responses to these comments are outlined below.

1. Instead of using the layer number "N," we can use the thickness of graphene layers. The thickness was measured using AFM, and the value of "N" can be extracted from the measurement. The measured contrasts exhibit sufficient resolution to specify the values of "N," which is the primary reason why we chose to use "N".
2. The consistency between run2 and run3 is likely attributed to the fact that these runs were performed without a break. In contrast, run1 was conducted on a different day.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper the authors analyze the coherent and incoherent corrections to the reflectance of multilayer graphene on SiO₂/Si substrates that are caused by the light it emits after absorbing the very small light fraction. They have calculated theoretically the reflectivities of the multilayers with different number of layers neglecting incoherent corrections which is the cause of the optical visibility of the layers and compared them with experimentally measured values founding a reasonable agreement considering coherent corrections. Their method of analysis can also be used for the understanding of the optical properties of other layered material structures that have or not an energy band gap.

The work reported is original and scientifically sound and has a great significance for the analysis of the optical properties of layered materials. The experimental methods that are used in the paper are perfectly described. In the introduction the authors consider and describe all relevant references, the results are clearly presented, and the paper has been well written. Arguments and conclusions are supported by the data. I recommend the paper for publication, as is.

Author Response

We extend our gratitude to the referee for dedicating valuable time to review our manuscript.