Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]

Bas van Wijngaarden; Junchun Yang; Jurriaan Schmitz

doi:10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112254

Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]

Bas van Wijngaarden, Junchun Yang, Jurriaan Schmitz^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Integrated Devices and Systems

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

88 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The authors regret to have incorrectly presented equation (7). In this equation, the given threshold value of 225 should be 900 to be in quantitative agreement with the referred article. As a consequence, in the final line of Table 2, the same criterion now leads to a slight correction: 57 passing versus 11 failing articles. In the Conclusion section the fourth line should therefore read: Another 11 articles suffer from spreading resistance in a conductive top layer. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Original language	English
Article number	112254
Journal	Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
Volume	254
Early online date	20 Feb 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112254
Publication status	Published - 1 Jun 2023

Keywords

UT-Hybrid-D

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112254Licence: CC BY

1-s2.0-S0927024823000752-mainFinal published version, 223 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{a7e7968c0fe54089a04aefdb812beccc,

title = "Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]",

abstract = "The authors regret to have incorrectly presented equation (7). In this equation, the given threshold value of 225 should be 900 to be in quantitative agreement with the referred article. As a consequence, in the final line of Table 2, the same criterion now leads to a slight correction: 57 passing versus 11 failing articles. In the Conclusion section the fourth line should therefore read: Another 11 articles suffer from spreading resistance in a conductive top layer. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.",

keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D",

author = "{van Wijngaarden}, Bas and Junchun Yang and Jurriaan Schmitz",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Author(s)",

year = "2023",

month = jun,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112254",

language = "English",

volume = "254",

journal = "Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells",

issn = "0927-0248",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]. / van Wijngaarden, Bas; Yang, Junchun; Schmitz, Jurriaan.
In: Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, Vol. 254, 112254, 01.06.2023.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method

T2 - A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]

AU - van Wijngaarden, Bas

AU - Yang, Junchun

AU - Schmitz, Jurriaan

PY - 2023/6/1

Y1 - 2023/6/1

N2 - The authors regret to have incorrectly presented equation (7). In this equation, the given threshold value of 225 should be 900 to be in quantitative agreement with the referred article. As a consequence, in the final line of Table 2, the same criterion now leads to a slight correction: 57 passing versus 11 failing articles. In the Conclusion section the fourth line should therefore read: Another 11 articles suffer from spreading resistance in a conductive top layer. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

AB - The authors regret to have incorrectly presented equation (7). In this equation, the given threshold value of 225 should be 900 to be in quantitative agreement with the referred article. As a consequence, in the final line of Table 2, the same criterion now leads to a slight correction: 57 passing versus 11 failing articles. In the Conclusion section the fourth line should therefore read: Another 11 articles suffer from spreading resistance in a conductive top layer. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148337620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112254

DO - 10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112254

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

AN - SCOPUS:85148337620

SN - 0927-0248

VL - 254

JO - Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

JF - Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

M1 - 112254

ER -

Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review

Cite this