Reviewer Roulette

Comment

Peer Review Antagonist Confusing Electrical Engineering

Dear Authors
1 This paper is written well However, the author should compare the research results to other works related to this topic in the results-discussions part. Moreover, the "research contribution" should be discussed in detail. I suggest that the authors add a chapter, "Research Contribution," after the introduction. The author can highlight the research contribution chapter at the end. Suppose it brings new knowledge and why it is not compared with the data, such as in the introduction or other studies. In that case, the author can compare the research output to the VLC's recently available component.
2. I am confused. What do you do in this work? Did you propose a materials candidate for optics communication? What is your target? High-speed VLC? Low-noise VLC? High-bandwidth?. Please justify it.
3. In the first paragraph, "Selenium" should be followed by a note (Se), what is ITO? please explain before shortening. It is expected the author will include abbreviation lists. ...

- Comment from Optik: International Journal for Light and Electron Optics reviewer

Context by Author

Dear Editor,
We would like to thank you and thank the referee members for the evaluation of our submitted manuscript. The comments are very helpful and improved the physics of the article. Your efforts are appreciated. Here below you may find list of changes that are carried out in accordance with your referees suggestions.
Please notice that answers to the first and second referee questions are marked in red and blue.
Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors systematically investigated the properties of Se thin film coated with WO3 and the Se/WO3 interface. The detailed analyses and experimental results are presented in the text. The results show that coating of WO3 onto Se substrate can significantly change the physical properties of Se substrate and enhance light absorption and achieve novel dielectric properties as well. This work is interesting but not written well. Major changes to the article language description and grammar format are needed.
Ans: we have checked the language and improved the text as much as we can.
In addition, the authors should rewrite "Introduction" section. In this section, more relative works should be introduced, and then emphasize the innovation of this work.
Ans: The introduction is now improved and new chapter is added in addition the motivation and innovation is clearly stated,
You are kindly invited to read the introduction and provide your new comments which are welcomed.
Reviewer #2: Dear Authors
1. This paper is written well. However,
the author should compare the research results to other works related to this topic in the results-discussions part.
Ans: we have now compared our results with the others in page 17, paragraph 1, the following is inserted
“It is interesting to compare the currently proposed Se/WO3 interfaces as VLC receivers with those available in ...