Next Article in Journal
Nonparametric Generation of Synthetic Data Using Copulas
Previous Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Model of Android Software Aging and Rejuvenation Considering Battery Saving
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

Top-Gate Transparent Organic Synaptic Transistors Based on Co-Mingled Heterojunctions

Electronics 2023, 12(7), 1596; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071596
by Junjie Xing, Shixian Qin, Binglin Lai, Bowen Li, Zhida Li and Guocheng Zhang *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Electronics 2023, 12(7), 1596; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071596
Submission received: 25 February 2023 / Revised: 26 March 2023 / Accepted: 27 March 2023 / Published: 29 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented work describes a novel and interesting approach to create an artificial synaptic transistor using a co-blended heterojunction. The device is transparent and successfully simulates typical synaptic functions, making it a potentially valuable tool in the field of neuromorphic devices. The authors provide a detailed description of the materials and methods used to fabricate the device, including the semiconductor layer, gate dielectric layer, and gate electrode. However, there are some drawbacks to the paper. The authors do not provide any information on the stability of the device over time, which is an important factor to consider for practical applications. Additionally, the authors do not compare their device to existing artificial synaptic transistors or discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of their approach compared to others. Finally, the paper lacks a clear conclusion or summary, making it difficult for the reader to understand the overall significance of the work. Based on these limitations, I regret to inform the authors that I cannot recommend the paper for publication at this time. However, I encourage the authors to address these concerns and resubmit the paper for further review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript entitled ‘Top-gate transparent organic synaptic transistors based on co- mingled heterojunctions’

In the manuscript, a transparent organic artificial synaptic transistor based on a co-blended hetero-junction has been prepared by the solution method. The manuscript requests a lot of improvements to be published.

The text contains many English spellings and many bad sentences as an example:

‘…fabrication cost of the device and allowing for a more This reduces the complexity and fabrication cost of the device and allows for a more convenient preparation of the device. Error! Reference source not found.’

- Many acronyms are not given for examples:The PPF was also investigated as a typical feature of short-term plasticity, which is a 172 double pulse easing, a typical form of STP’.

- The introduction must be more complete concerning the state of the art of this technology.

- A discussion on the results must be done.

- The figure 1 must be improved.

- A SEM image of the transistor must be given with topographic characterization.

- The conclusion must be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Top-gate transparent organic synaptic transistors based on co-2 mingled heterojunctions" by Xing et al. report the realization of a synaptic transistor based on benzodithiobenzene-benzothiadiazole and [6,6]-phenyl-C61 butyricaciisomethylester. 

This manuscript in the present form cannot be accepted for publication. Below my comments: 

- the manuscript in some parts is very hard to read and need a strong improvement of the English.  To give an example: the very first sentence of the introduction is too long and a little bit confused. I strongly recommend to carefully revise the entire body of the manuscript.

- the manuscript seems to be submitted without a proper revision. Some internal reference errors  ("Error! Reference source not found") and some repetitions (i.e. "The device is transparent to more than 75% and can successfully simulate typical device is transparent to more than 75% and can successfully simulate typical synaptic functions" or "additional functional layers such as charge trapping, reducing the complexity and fabrication cost of the device and allowing for a more This reduces the complexity and fabrication cost of the device and allows  for a more convenient preparation of the device.") and some ingenuities (the missing definition of acronyms  or "1010 31 ~1012 neurons and 1012 ~1015 synapses")are present all over the text. Please, revise carefully the manuscript before a new submission. 

- In line with what I already commented before, the introduction section is very confused and partially incomplete. The section describing the synaptic elements approaches is too limited. The 2 electrodes structure is missing of important references related to the field. the mentioning of just Fu et al. work is too limited. In the same line, the description of 3 terminal devices is imprecise since organic memristive devices based on conductive polymers have been widely demonstrated also in 3 electrodes configuration. Please revise carefully this section enlarging the state of the art part. 

- Moreover, Your ref 11 is badly cited since the prof. to be nominated is Prof.L Chua not Shao tang Cai. 

- There is no a clear explanation of why there is the need of transparency in synaptic devices. Please provide it. 

-The quality of Figure 1 and 2 must be improved.

- Regarding the materials and methods section, the structure of the devices is not clear. ITO glass was the substrate and which is the material of electrodes? From Figure 1 and 2, substrate and electrodes seems of two different materials thus you need to specify the final structure of the device and the preparation of every single layer. Which is the purpose of having source and drain electrode on ITO support? 

- regarding the results section, there is no correlation between the biological similarity (Figure 2B) and the chosen experimental set up (Figure 3a). If the source and drain current channel is the post synaptic current, and the gate circuit is the presynaptic one, why you obtained Figure 3a fixing the gate voltage (VG= 10V)? Moreover, if you fixed the gate potential what you obtained is not a transfer curve.  

-  a precise description of the characterization methods describing the electrical parameters used for the experiments is missing. To give an example: which is the electrical connection used for obtaining Figure 2b? which is the voltage in the x axis, Vgate or V channel ?   

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all of my concerns, and the manuscript can be published in its original form.

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

Thank you for your review comments on my article.

 

Sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been revised correctly according to the reviewer's comment. The manuscript can now be accepted.

 

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

Thank you for your review comments on my article.

 

Sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

I appreciated the modifications that you operated in the manuscript however I'm sorry but the manuscript is still not ready to be published. 

- Ref 11 is still wrong. 

- you added exactly 1 citation to introduction section regarding 2 electrodes devices. This is still not complete, neither representative of the field of research. 

- my comment on the state of the art was this: In the same line, the description of 3 terminal devices is imprecise since organic memristive devices based on conductive polymers have been widely demonstrated also in 3 electrodes configuration. Please revise carefully this section enlarging the state of the art part. You translated in The description of 3 terminal devices is imprecise. My request was to improve the description of 3 terminal devices with neuromorphic properties, providing a larger state of the art, not limiting the description of 3 terminal devices to transistor elements.  I'm sorry but you simply didn't apply any significant improvement. The previous version of this part (3 terminal devices) was based on 12 publications, the actual version to 12 publications.  

- my comment on device structure was Regarding the materials and methods section, the structure of the devices is not clear. ITO glass was the substrate and which is the material of electrodes? From Figure 1 and 2, substrate and electrodes seems of two different materials thus you need to specify the final structure of the device and the preparation of every single layer. Which is the purpose of having source and drain electrode on ITO support?  that you translated in Regarding the materials and methods section, the structure of the devices is not clear and you replied "Response 9: Top gate structure, ITO with source-drain electrodes. / Semiconductor layer/Insulation layer/Gate electrode. The substrate is indium tin oxide (ITO) transparent conductive glass, and there is a patterned metal oxide conductive layer (source and drain) on the glass substrate. so the device schematic is differentiated with colour in order to show the source-drain.".  Which is the  metal oxide conductive layer you're referring at? How did you obtain it? what is the sense of having a conductive layer (ITO) below two electrodes?

- PPF is paired pulse facilitation not double PF. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

I recognize that you improved the quality of your work. Please consider this last minor comment: 
- in the introduction you need to specify acronyms before their first use. In line 67 you wrote "LTP/LTD behaviour is simulated" without specifying the meaning of LTP and LTD. Same situation in line: 
- 76 "ITO/PEDOT: PSS/ITO"
- 78 "rGO/(PEDOT: PSS)"
- 101 "EPSC/ IPSC," 

- 108 "PVDF"

- 118"IGZO"

Please verify carefully, all the acronyms you used in the introduction. 



-

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop