Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article deals about study of Zno, CeO2 and mixed ZnO:CeO2 thin films dip-coated on glass. These thin films are of interest for different fields of application, from electronic to antibacteria or sunscreen...

To my opinion this paper shoud better exploit the experimental features by better descritpion of measurement conditions (especially on XRD).

It worths publication after very careful rewritting. In addition 

See other comments in pdf included.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor,

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have developed ZnO:CeO2 thin film via dip coating technique prior to optoelectronic devices and thin film transistors. I strongly believe this manuscript give an added value to MDPI Photonics. However, there are many comments that need to be addressed.

1. The introduction is very short and it is not clear why the authors should introduce ZnO:CeO2 thin film and why via non-vacuum deposition technique.
2. The experimental details are not properly written as the instrument details are described in results and discussion. Every experimental details in results/discussion section should move to experimental section.
3. Several formula/equation were given in this manuscript which should move to experimental section or to remove from this manuscript as it is a general known equation.
4. The authors have described XRD patterns and the thickness of thin film is estimated via SEM image, but the SEM images are not shown in this manuscript.
5. It is hard to understand why the authors want to study several properties prior to applications, that is why a better introduction is needed.
6. FTIR spectroscopy is very short and has no added value to this manuscript. I suggest to remove section 3.2.
7. Section 3.5 contains bit too much experiment details which should be revised.
8. Is 88 references really necessary? Some references are very old or are not related to this manuscript.

I, therefore, suggest the authors to rewrite/revise this manuscript to more compact manuscript so that their results will be highlighted.

Author Response

Dear editor,

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

2nd Review on 3rd november 2020.

I have already sent comments on the first version. 

This comments have not all been read apparently  and the article has been marginaly changed.  I recommended a strong reflection on XRD analysis :

i) carefull description of XRD setup with resolution conditions  (as demanded before,  not just the brand model...)

ii) Carefull rewritting of paragraph line 160 to 172.  + dislocation part.

the authors  simply tell  D(vertical? correlation lenght) = f(beta). 

then juste after:  <epsilon> = g(beta)  !  Without comments on these two extreme cases.

(where beta  is the FWHM of the peaks)

epsilon and <epsilon> are not depicted. In Fig. 2 legend you refer to epsilon (do you mean  <epsilon> ?). 

Actually beta depends  on D, <epsilon>, but also on XRD setup conditions to ensure contribution separation from lateral to vertical direction (normal to surface). To my opinion, a carefull analysis must be carried out to disantangle the contributions  or an argumentation must given (based on other analysis). 

How can you obtain Fig. 2 just based on this simplist analysis ?

I strongly suggest a clarification of this paragraph.

I suggest  litterature reading by using some of these keywords

Williamson-Hall, Halder-Wagner, size-strain plot

Williamson-Hall works are from the 1950"s  Halder-Wagner 1960's. Many studies have been carried out since.

Thurtherly you also analysis broadening as due to dislocations but never discuss about the mixing contributions...

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please find attached a point-point rebuttal reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adjusted and improved their manuscript based on the reviewers comments. This manuscript is ready for the publication in MDPI Photonics.

Author Response

We have already answered the questions of the reviewer. He has already approved the publication of the manuscript

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

This article deals about study of Zno, CeO2 and mixed ZnO:CeO2 thin films dip-coated on glass.

First of all my review concentrated on XRD part as I'm more specialized on this topic and I felt that the paper needed strong reviewing...

The authors have rewritten and added analyses.

The paper now worths publication after minor rewritting on last version.

I don't require further submission. I estimate I had enaugh contribuited. And I leave it in hands of the scientific editor.

See also comments in the PDF manuscript.

1. L114 XRD setup description is not sufficient.

The authors should explain the experimental conditions they use (Multilayer mirror ? BraggBreantano or flat multibounce (what ?) monochrommator type, Sollers & div. Slits, detection system, effective longitudinal & transverse resolution). Be more precise on type scans (ome/2theta, theta/2theta … which means « specular » also better suited in case of Bragg Brentano divergent beam configuration)

1. D and microstrain : (l160)
   1. (epsilon) <epsilon>  chose a constant notation  (conform to littérature usage)
   2. In this part you shoud precise that you consider first that broadening is due to D size then to (epsilon)… this appears strange since most readers know that it is mixed (and other other can get confused by this first analysis).

• D and microstrain WH analysis
  1. To my opinion this part really improves the paper but should be argumented by precision on XRD resolution conditions…
  2. The author should better explain their (UDM) and the interplay with the different peaks families (related to different orientations) employed in the analysis.
  3. To confirm their WH analysis they should present WH plots in a figure that would bring more scientific content that the figure showing the extinction (extinction is linked to alpha by a simple relation).
• General remarks:
  • Crystallite size <=> dislocation density : I also don't get the point. A layer can be monocrystalline (connected to a monocrystalline substrate) but full of dislocations that will allow plastic relaxation => microstrain, micromosaic  etc... .
  • I pointed about little vocabulary  mistakes (to my humble opinion). Once you write about  "crystalline density". I'm not sure this is the right concept. Since you write "crystallite size" you should write "crystallites density".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find a point-point rebuttal that addresses all issues kindly raised by you. We appreciate your efforts that enriched our work. Your detailed and careful revisions are highly appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf