Effect of Surfactant Addition on Organic Transparent Conductive Films Fabricated by Inkjet Printing Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript cannot be published in this form. Further work is required on the following points:
- it is possible to estimate the refractive index of samples before and after surfactant application
-it is not clear the effect of the additive on the change in the structure (is there an embedding in the structure?); it is possible to use the method of IR spectroscopy, etc.
-it is also a good idea to give the results of studying samples by scanning electron microscopy
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have introduced a fabrication method of organic transparent conductive films based on PEDOT:PSS by addition of surfactants to polar solvents. The topic of this manuscript is quite helpful for flexible electronic devices. But before considering it as publications in Electronic Materials, some technical issues have to be addressed.
- In Fig. 2, the authors showed the printing cycles vs resistance and transmittance, could the authors also show the relationship with film thickness?
- In Fig. 3, the authors showed the S-231 wt% vs resistance, when using 3 printing cycles. Could the authors explain why this printing cycle is used. How about the other printing cycles? Would this S-231 wt% dependence be different?
- In addition, how many samples are measured in the results from Fig. 3?
- In the manuscript, the authors only showed the transmittance from 550nm wavelength spectrum, is there any special reason? Could the authors further explain in the manuscript?
- Finally, the author claimed the films fabricated are comparable with ITO films. How about FTO films? Could the authors compare these specs in an overall manner, such as resistance, thickness and transmittance?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
According to the authors' responses to the comments, it seemed to me that their research was limited by the capabilities of their laboratory. Which is not good. In my opinion, the characterization of materials is not enough to establish certain relationships. Infrared spectroscopy and scanning microscopy are standard methods that are used to characterize materials of this type
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
We thank reviewers for reading our manuscript carefully and for giving useful comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made some comments to the technical issues in the previous version manuscript. The revised version could be considered as a potential publications in Electronic Materials. Thus the reviewer would suggest accept it as is.
Author Response
We thank reviewers for reading our manuscript carefully and for giving useful comments.
