Gamma Ray Effects on Multi-Colored Commercial Light-Emitting Diodes at MGy Level
, Raphaël Clerc 1, Matteo Ferrari 1, Adriana Morana 1, Timothé Allanche 1, Roberto Pecorella 1, Aziz Boukenter 1, Youcef Ouerdane 1, Emmanuel Marin 1, Olivier Duhamel 2, Marc Gaillardin 3, Philippe Paillet 2 and Sylvain Girard 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript entitled with ‘Gamma ray effects on multi-colored commercial Light Emitting 2 Diodes at MGy level’ detailed discuss that influence of high radiation on the LED performance. The experiment is well designed, and the paper is well-written and well-organized. The topic would be quite interesting and useful to the community, and could be used as a guidance for LED applications in harsh environment. I recommend this manuscript to be accepted in the Journal of Electronics after addressing the following points.
1. From Figure 9, we can see that, the intensity for the red LED is not decreased that much when it was under bias compared with unbiased ones. Could the authors give us more insights on the reason for this?
2. There are many acronyms used in this paper, I think there is no need to capitalize first letter for the words when will show the acronyms, such as ‘Total Ionizing Doses (TIDs)’, ‘Figure of Merit (FoM)’, ‘External Quantum Efficiency (EQE)’. On the other hand, abbreviation like ‘COTS’ is only used once, so there’s no need to show the abbreviation for this word. Finally, it’s also better to spell out ‘IRMA’ and ‘IRSN’ in line 119. Please check again the whole paper thoroughly for any inconsistency.
3. There are also some typos in the manuscript, such as in line 163, ‘figure 6’ should be ‘figure 7’, in line 360, ‘LEDS’ should be ‘LEDs’.
4. It’s not formal to show bullet points in a manuscript as shown from line 147 to 161, 168 to 173, and it’s better to show the bullet points into a paragraph with more detailed elaboration.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors evaluated the optical properties of commercial Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) after they have been exposed to gamma-rays, up to Total Ionizing Dose (TID) of 2 MGy (air). My comments:
1. Please add space: MGy(air)
2. Please improve the abstract and add some numerical results (the main findings in this work)
3. There are 7 keywords, in general the paper contains 4-5 keywords
4. The number of references in the introduction is not enough, I encourage the authors to add some recent references to the introduction (2020, 2021 and 2022)
5. In the introduction, can you please explain the difference between the current work and other similar works?
6. In the introduction, can you please write the importance of this work?
7. Please check this in section 2.1: investigated. [14]
8. In the text in section 2.1: I understood that the samples are collected from Ref 14, but in the Fig.1, it is written Ref. 15. please check
9. Can you write this abbreviation in Full name: IRMA facility at IRSN
10 . Is Co-60 source gives an energy of 1 MeV only?
11. What is the activity of the Co-60source used in this work?
12. In fig.4, please write in the subfigure which is a and which is b
13. Please improve the resolution of Fig.,7
14. The conclusion is long, you can reduce it
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a well-structured paper with interesting results. However, it requires further improvements.
(1) In the abstract section, I would suggest that the author should provide to the point and quantitative advantages of the proposed method.
(2) In the abstract, the author should highlight the specific problems to be solved in this study at the beginning, and then lead to the solutions. At present, the description is not clear.
(3) The method/approach in the context of the proposed work should be written in detail.
(4) In the Section 2, the values of parameters could be a complicated problem itself, how the authors give the values of parameters in the used methods.
(5) At Line 67, “The emission spectra that can control the imaging colorimetry aspect should be considered as well”, ….. There are some grammatical mistakes and typo errors. please proof read from native speaker.
(6) In Section 2 of Materials and Methods, the novel of this paper is clearly inadequate.
(7) The literature review is poor in this paper. I hope that the authors can add some new references in order to improve the reviews. For example, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3059451; https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023090;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.052 ï¼›https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109422 and so on.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I have appreciated the deep revision of the contents and the present form of this manuscript. All my previous concerns have been accurately addressed. I think that this paper can be accepted.
