SiC ultra -thin films for high-performance quantum spacecraft applications fabricated via nanosecond pulsed laser deposition and doping

Praveen Kumar Kanti; Prashantha Kumar H.G.; V. Vicki Wanatasanappan; Abhinav Kumar; Dhouha Choukaier; Subbulakshmi Ganesan; Tekalign Negash Kebede

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327455

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 2, 2025
15 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Massimo Mariello, Editor PONE-D-25-11267Next-Generation SiC Ultra-Thin Films Fabricated by Nanosecond Pulsed Laser Deposition: Tailored Doping for Space-Ready High-Frequency ElectronicsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kebede, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Based on the reviewer's feedback the article needs some major revisions in terms of morphology measurements and explanations in the text. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Massimo Mariello Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. Additional Editor Comments: Based on the reviewer's feedback the article needs some major revision in terms of morphology measurements and explanations in the text [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of space electronics and thin film technology. It is characterized by its scientific and technical accuracy, well-structured organization, and deep analysis of results. However, it can be improved by simplifying some technical details, broadening the scope of the study, adding comparisons with other techniques, discussing practical challenges. Reviewer #2: In the present study, the authors have demonstrated the fabrication of next-generation silicon carbide (SiC) thin films using the pulse laser deposition (PLD) technique for high-frequency electronics. However, the manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication in PLOS ONE. A major revision is recommended. 1. The manuscript describes the fabrication of SiC thin films using PLD, while various other techniques are discussed in a related review on synthesizing SiC films (DOI: 10.1149/2162-8777/acf8f5). Explain the advantages of PLD over existing techniques, particularly its potential for large-scale production to reduce fabrication costs of SiC films. 2. PDL is a time-consuming technique. Provide details on the time required to deposit a 400 nm layer and discuss how PLD can expedite the fabrication time of SiC compared to other methods. 3. Abbreviations such as “MEMS, SIMS, FIB, N-TEM, etc.” should be defined when first introduced in the manuscript. 4. Authors mentioned “preparation of TiN/Al2O3 composite” on page 6. What is the role of TiN/Al2O3 in the present work. 5. Revise the figure caption of Figure 3 to provide a clear and independent explanation of the figure. 6. Authors mentioned that the film roughness is around 2-5 nm. However, the SEM micrograph suggest a rough surface. It is recommended to measure the film roughness of fabricated SiC using atomic force microcopy. 7. Mention the plane and JCPDS card number of SiC in the XRD graph. 8. Many English errors exist in the whole paper, which makes it very difficult to understand the paper completely. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: prf. dr. Thair Abdulkareem Khalil Al-Aish Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327455.r001
Revision 1
12 May 2025 Author Response The authors would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their valuable time to review the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised carefully based on the comments, and the details are as follows. Reviewer #1 Comments This manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of space electronics and thin film technology. It is characterized by its scientific and technical accuracy, well-structured organization, and deep analysis of results. However, it can be improved by simplifying some technical details, broadening the scope of the study, adding comparisons with other techniques, discussing practical challenges. Response The manuscript now features simplified technical details through section revisions which preserve strong scientific principles. We expanded the research by including new references to SiC fabrication through CVD and sputtering techniques. This section performs a practical analysis of large-scale thin film SiC production by discussing how to handle uniformity control and material impurity management in order to create high-performance devices. Reviewer #2 Comments The manuscript describes the fabrication of SiC thin films using PLD, while various other techniques are discussed in a related review on synthesizing SiC films (DOI: 10.1149/2162-8777/acf8f5). Explain the advantages of PLD over existing techniques, particularly its potential for large-scale production to reduce fabrication costs of SiC films Response Now we have incorporated the how Pulsed Laser Deposition (PLD) performs better than CVD and sputtering methods for deposition purposes. The principal benefits of PLD include its capability to form high-quality films at temperatures under 800°C while reducing production expenses. Some discuss PLD scalability because it exhibits great potential for manufacturing SiC products at decreased costs for space electronic components and power devices. Line no. 66-78 Comments ⁠PDL is a time-consuming technique. Provide details on the time required to deposit a 400 nm layer and discuss how PLD can expedite the fabrication time of SiC compared to other methods Response The time needed to produce a 400 nm SiC thin film through PLD operations spans from 12 to 15 hours based on the laser fluorence parameters. The processing duration for CVD extends beyond 12-15 hours coupled with elevated temperatures higher than 1400°C because PLD operates with superior efficiency. Line no. 66-78 Comments ⁠Abbreviations such as “MEMS, SIMS, FIB, N-C, etc.” should be defined when first introduced in the manuscript Response We have revised the manuscript to define all abbreviations the first time they appear, including MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems), SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry), FIB (Focused Ion Beam), and N-TEM (Nano-Transmission Electron Microscopy). These definitions have been added to improve clarity for the readers. Comments Authors mentioned “preparation of TiN/Al2O3 composite” on page 6. What is the role of TiN/Al2O3 in the present work Response The SiC preparations is mentioned Line no. 196 Comments Revise the figure caption of Figure 3 to provide a clear and independent explanation of the figure Response The Figure 3 caption has been rewritten to offer a comprehensive independent description. Line 215 Comments Authors mentioned that the film roughness is around 2-5 nm. However, the SEM micrograph suggest a rough surface. It is recommended to measure the film roughness of fabricated SiC using atomic force microscopy. Response We measured film roughness through AFM in order to respond to this suggestion. AFM investigation confirms the initial findings of surface roughness which exists between 2–5 nm when evaluating the SiC films. Comments Mention the plane and JCPDS card number of SiC in the XRD graph. Response The XRD section now contains specific planes including (002) and (112) and (100) among others together with their respective JCPDS card numbers that identify the SiC phases as 4H-SiC and 6H-SiC. Details about planes like (002), (112), (100) as well as JCPDS card numbers have been added to the revised manuscript to enhance crystallographic analysis clarity. Line 160 -163 Comments ⁠Many English errors exist in the whole paper, which makes it very difficult to understand the paper completely. Response All English language mistakes were corrected during a detailed revision process of the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327455.r002
17 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Massimo Mariello, Editor SiC Ultra -Thin Films for High-Performance Quantum Spacecraft Applications Fabricated via Nanosecond Pulsed Laser Deposition and Doping PONE-D-25-11267R1 Dear Dr. Kebede, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Massimo Mariello Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327455.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Massimo Mariello, Editor PONE-D-25-11267R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kebede, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Massimo Mariello Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327455.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .