:sweatate:        03-Mar-2020 08:24:51
Last Sent:        03-Mar-2020 08:24:51
Triggered By:        Redacted
BCC:        Redacted
Subject:        APL: MS #APL19-AR-11069 Decision Letter
Message:        Dear Prof. Dr. Chen,

Your manuscript, referenced below, has been reviewed for Applied Physics Letters.



The reviewers' comments are included below and/or attached. In view of their recommendations, we cannot accept your paper for publication in its present form. If you revise the paper to meet the reviewers' objections, we will most certainly give it further consideration.

Please indicate how the manuscript has been revised in a separate Response Letter file so that the editors can see whether you have complied with the reviewers' comments. Please use add file to upload the Response Letter file, and use replace for any files that have been revised or changed. Revised manuscripts must be submitted through the online submission system. They are not accepted by email.

The revised manuscript should be returned to the Editor promptly. Your revision is due by 01-Apr-2020. A manuscript returned more than 30 days from today should be submitted as a new manuscript and will be given a new receipt date.

Please go to the URL below to submit the revised version. To meet AIP Production requirements, please provide a separate figure file for each cited figure number (all parts in one file), in addition to your article-text file.
https://apl.peerx-press.org/cgi-bin/main.plex
(If clicking on the above URL address directly from your mail program is unsuccessful, please copy and paste the complete address into your browser.)

Thank you for the opportunity to examine this work.

Sincerely yours,

Emanuel Tutuc
Associate Editor
Applied Physics Letters

AIP Publishing
1305 Walt Whitman Road
Suite 300
Melville, NY 11747-4300 USA

phone: +1-516-576-2344
e-mail: apl-edoffice@aip.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuscript #APL19-AR-11069:

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: No
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 manuscript reports the observation of spatially distributed circularly polarized photocurrent at room temperature in a few-layer MoTe2 device, which is related to the geometry of the device and can be well explained by the combination of spin-polarized photon generated carriers and inverse spin Hall effect. The results are new and interesting, especially could be very helpful for people to understand their experiment results or to design their experiments. However, from the introduction, it seems like the author are trying to find new evidence indicating that the MoTe2 is Weyl semimetal at room temperature, and I personally think current results are not sufficient to make this conclusion because a normal heavy metal with strong inverse spin Hall effect like Pt could get the same results. I would suggest the author either do a control measurement on a similar device made from Pt, and compare its signal strength with the MoTe2 device; or just rewrite the introduction. I can recommend publication after the authors address my above concern.
Some minor suggestions:
1. Why we need figure 1(b), I did not find any description of this figure in the main text.
2. The unit of color bar in figure 2 has been missed.
3. There are too many un-labeled arrows in figure 3 schematic diagram, which make it really confused.


Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
Does this paper meet APL's standards: No
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?: Yes
Is the English satisfactory?: Yes
Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes
Is the paper well organized and understandable?: No

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

The paper by Yang Zhang et al. reported circularly polarized photocurrent measurement in thin film MoTe2 at room temperature and interpreted it as a result of inverse Hall effect. The data is interesting but the paper is not well written and the interpretation of the data is not understandable to a general reader. Below are the specific comments.
1: Page 2, "spin-polarized photon-generated carriers which are diffusion because of Gaussian distribution at the center of sample". This sentence is badly written and confusing.
2: Page 2, the single crystal growth method needs reference.
3: Page 2, "a modulated circular polarized light with a fixed modulating frequency at 50 KHz (1F)". What does 1F mean?
4: Page 3, z axis is not defined in the crystal structure of Figure 1b, although I assume it is perpendicular to the basal planes.
5: Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. What is the purpose of writing down these two equations? There is no discussion about how to fit the data with the equations, no discussion of its physical pictures and so on. What is the physical meaning of "a function that depends on the spot position and the spot radius"?
6: Fig. 2b is never mentioned in the article!
7: Where is the data in Fig. 2d taken? Two lines can be drawn in Fig. 2c to show the position.
8: What are C-ISHE and L-ISHE? Although the reader can guess (center inverse spin Hall effect?), it's better define them.
9: "the phenomenon that sign of the circularly polarized photocurrent signal in the middle of the sample is opposite to the signal near the electrode is successfully explained". After reading the article I don't think it is explained clearly.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Separate figure files (separate from text and tables) are required for production purposes. Submit a separate figure file for each figure cited in the article, not just one file containing all figures. The allowed file formats for figure files include TIF, PS, EPS, JPEG, or high quality PDF. Figures may remain embedded in the article, but we must also have individual figure files in the indicated format. NOTE: DOC or DOCX figure files are not permitted. Please do not provide separate table files; tables should remain within the text. You will find more instructions here: https://aip.scitation.org/apl/authors/manuscript

* Please do not use "new" and "novel"; if the findings are not new or novel, they should not be submitted to APL. Other priority claims, such as "for the first time", should be eliminated. Similarly, "to our knowledge" and "successfully" are not allowed.

第一次投APL，请问这是什么意思，给了修改机会？语言确实写的不好。 返回小木虫查看更多