SCI 投稿经历.docVIP

今天收到邮件Ms. Ref. No.:?××××××Title: ×××××Physics Letters ADear professor 鬃P,Reviewers comments on your work have now been received.??You will see that they are advising against publication of your work.??Therefore I must reject it.For your guidance, I append the reviewers comments below.Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.Yours sincerely,鬃?（编辑名）EditorPhysics Letters AReviewers comments:Reviewer #2: Manuscript The authors present results of the 3D electron potential ofa gated quantum point contact in a AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure.In contrast to earlier studies, it is now possible to derive thepotential landshape without any adjustable parameter. The resultsstill agree with earlier investigations using simpler phenomenologicalmodels. Since the used nextnano3 program is available since acouple of years, I wonder why this has not been done earlier.The authors emphasize an application of their results. Havingthe complete potential landshape might help, in the future,to better understand the quantized acoustoelectric current inSETSAW devices and to improve their performance.However, the authors do not show or even discuss how this canbe achieved. Therefore I believe that in the present form the paperis not suitable for publication.The authors should consider the following suggestions, questions,and remarks.1) Page 1, first paragraph... due to the negatively applied gate voltage .... It is the SAWthat drives the electrons through the contact, not the gate voltage.Maybe replace this sentence by ..., depending on the applied gatevoltage.2) Page 3, paragraph starting with Generally, the quantized ...... with fixed x = 1050 nm and .... Skip the .0. One could addthat this is exactly at the center of the device.3) At the end of the same paragraph is ... once the bias is below ...Should this not be the gate instead of the bias voltage?4) Page 4, paragraph starting with As we know, in the ...... To