An Optimum Structure of Scalable Capacitors in 3D Crosspoint Memory Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
nice work, howerver
- Some important reference of comparing cap structures is missing:
IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 37, NO. 3, MARCH 2002 Capacity Limits and Matching Properties of Integrated Capacitors Roberto Aparicio, Student Member, IEEE, and Ali Hajimiri, Member, IEEE
- Besides cap density, other parameters are also (or even more) important: the effect of Cap structure on quality factor (parasitic Resistance) and matching is totally missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript reports the calculated capacitance of three types of wiring capacitor (vertical capacitor, vertical and horizontal capacitor with next neighbor wires bonded to the other terminal, and vertical horizontal capacitor with next neighbor pairs bonded to the other terminal) using the model, namely, Wong’s crossover capacitor model. The authors conducted numerical calculation to obtain the capacitance relation which was introduced in the Wong’s paper (Shyh-Chyi Wong, Trent Gwo-Yann Lee, Dye-Junn Ma and Chuan-Jane Chao, "An empirical three-dimensional crossover capacitance model for multilevel interconnect VLSI circuits," in IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 219-227, May 2000, doi: 10.1109/66.843637). The authors also compared the capacitance values to the real performance of the device which is fabricated by themselves and analyzed the differences. Finally, they concluded which structure is the most appropriate in terms of capacitance density for the 3D cross-point memory technology.
Please consider or clarify the following points:
- I think several references in this manuscript are missed explicit citation in the text. For example, there is no content or information which is citing the reference [16], [17], and [18]. It seems that the reference [18] is cited for the formulas in the numerical calculation of the capacitance of each structure, but there is no obvious and formal citation about those references.
- I am afraid that there might be a miscitation in the manuscript. For example, in the line 58 and 100, the authors cited the reference [15], probably for the validity of Wong’s model. However, I cannot find the exact information or contents about Wong’s model in the reference [15] ( E. Ruehli and P. A. Brennan, "Capacitance models for integrated circuit metallization wires," in IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 530-536, Dec. 1975, doi: 10.1109/JSSC.1975.1050654). It is recommended either to clarify the connection to the reference [15] or to replace it with a proper reference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper subject: An Optimum Structure of Scalable Capacitors in 3D Crosspoint Memory Technology
Electronics
Date: November, 02,2021
Dear Editor-in-chief,
Due to the subsequent paragraphs, I suggest revision at this point.
This paper represents the optimal structure of three types of wiring capacitors. The authors developed the introduction and rest of the paper well, however, there are some points that should be done in order to make the paper suitable for publication. My comments are presented below:
- The contribution of the paper and the management insights are not clear. It would be best to describe some concerns following the subject of the manuscript and then address the study gap that the manuscript tries to cover. In addition, the authors should state the key problems rising from developing such model
- Abstract section needs improvements, what are your main concerns to do that? What was the main purpose to do your work? Lack of literature, scarcity of publications? Also, what are the main findings in your work? These things must be clearly discussed in the abstract section.
- It is suggested that to compare your work with previous studies in a separate table to identify the differences.
- The given notations should be identified within a table for better understanding of the readers about untied ones in your modeling
- Table 1 and Table 2 must be changed due to the MDPI guide for authors, please revise
- All figures and tables need more explanation. Also, there is another section needed to identify the managerial aspects of this work rather than comparing the findings, also authors must address carefully what are their most important findings and why?
- The conclusion section must be further developed. This section is so abstract, I suggest writing this section into three paragraphs, first paragraphs detail what has been done in the work, second paragraphs you must define the main results and contributions, and last paragraphs you must mention managerial insights alongside subjects which make this study forward.
- English expressions should be further improved through careful reading. Also, I suggested you add highlights.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
many thanks for the adjustments
