两个审稿人意见如下。第一个很好回答。针对第二个审稿人的问题，我在修改说明信中做了很充分的理论与若干实验解释。但这些问题与文章题目以及主体不太相干。并且针对这个问题，已在准备另一篇文章。因此，整篇文章基本没修改就再次提交了。不知这样做是否会得到审稿人和编辑认可?是否需要在文章中做出详细解释?大家有什么好建议吗？
Reviewer Comments:?
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:?
Does this paper meet APL's standards: Yes?
Is the paper scientifically sound with the assertions made and conclusions drawn well supported: Yes?
Is the discussion of related work and associated references adequate?: Yes?
Is the English satisfactory?: Yes?
Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes?
Is the paper well organized and understandable?: Yes?

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author(s):?

This work presents a refinement of the well-studied InAs/GaSb SLS with an additional layer of InSb at a variable interval inside the GaSb region. It is shown through both theory and experiment that this is effective in extending the cut off wavelength of the SLS. As a result, the work is novel, useful, timely and of significant interest to the community working on SLS detectors. The work is furthermore clearly of exemplary technical quality.?

As a result of the above, this reviewer recommends publication in APL.?

One small revision is recommended, which is that Fig 3a is given with a linear scale for wavelength and a reciprocal scale for wavenumber, rather than the present vice versa. This would improve clarity in distinguishing the difference in the cut-off wavelength as claimed.?


Reviewer #2 Evaluations:?
Does this paper meet APL's standards: Yes?
Is the paper scientifically sound with the assertions made and conclusions drawn well supported: No?
Is the discussion of related work and associated references adequate?: No?
Is the English satisfactory?: Yes?
Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes?
Is the paper well organized and understandable?: Yes?

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author(s):?

I would like to thank authors for nice work. The manuscript discusses the approach and experimental results systematically. There are a few key details missing. I request authors to provide those details for the benefit of the T2SL community.?
1. In the first paragraph authors used the acronym including 'M' structure, please include a reference for M-structure.?
2. The argument given by author for high RmaxA value for design 5 is not convincing. Type-II superlattice material system is very sensitive to fabrication process. Are authors convinced that better performance is not due to device fabrication variations? It is not believable that design 5 and 6 will differ in RmaxA value by ~10. The SRH argument is a plausible one, but it can not justify a factor of 10 in the resistance-area product value for design 5 vs design 6.?

 返回小木虫查看更多