Topological Insulators in Bi2Se3, Bi2Te3 and Sb2Te3 with a Single Dirac Cone on the Surface

• p. 3 right column, end of band-inversion paragraph

  while the SOC of Sb2T e3 is not strong enough to induce such an inversion

• p. 3 left column, parity analysis

  Sb2T e3 and Bi2T e3 are also strong topological insulators, and Sb2Se3 is a trivial insulator

• p. 3

  the SOC of Sb2T e3 is not strong enough to induce such an inversion.

• p. 3 right column, end of band-sequence paragraph (just before 'Topological surface states')

  while the SOC of Sb2T e3 is

Judge's note: On the page 3 image (crop C009-a) the second compound reads Sb2Te3. The same sentence places Sb2Te3 among the inverted materials. Three other places give the trivial material as Sb2Se3: the abstract and introduction ('Sb2Te3, Bi2Te3 and Bi2Se3 are topological insulators while Sb2Se3 is not'), the parity analysis on p.3, and Fig. 2(d) on p.2, where the parity product is (+) for Sb2Se3 and (−) for the other three. So the clause names the wrong compound.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 2 left column, Band structure and parity analysis

  and Se1′ in Fig. 1b)

• p. 2 left column

  as Bi1 and Bi1′ in Fig. 1b)

• p. 2 left column

  noted as Se2 in Fig. 1b)

• p. 2 Fig. 1 caption

  (b) Top view along the z direction

Judge's note: Looked at Fig. 1 on the p.2 image: panel (b) is the small top-view hexagon with an 'A site / B site / C site' legend and no atom names; panel (c) (side view) carries Se1′, Se1, Bi1, Se2, Bi1′, Se1′, Se1. Panel (a) has only an unprimed Bi/Se1/Se2 legend. The caption agrees with the figure lettering ('(b) Top view along the z direction ... (c) Side view of the quintuple layer structure'), so the text pointers are wrong and should read Fig. 1c.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 4 right column, after the fitted parameters

  |T 1+ z , ↑(↓)⟩and |T 2− z , ↑(↓)⟩

• p. 4 paragraph after Eq. (1)

  the order of the bands |T 1+ z , ↑(↓)⟩and |T 2− z , ↑(↓)⟩

Judge's note: The p.4 crop shows 'T1' and 'T2' printed in this one sentence. The basis of Eq. (1) on the same page, the text on p.3 and Fig. 3 all use P1z+ and P2z−; T is used in the paper only for time-reversal symmetry and no T1/T2 states are defined.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 4 right column, text after Eq. (2)

  state wavefunction |k, ↑(↓)⟩is a superposition of the

• p. 4 left column, Low energy effective model

  Starting from four low lying states

Judge's note: Page 4 image, right column below Eq. (2): the superscript on P2 is clearly '+'. The same page defines the four low-lying states as |P1z+,↑(↓)⟩ and |P2z−,↑(↓)⟩ (left column) and the basis of Eq. (1) as (|P1z+,↑⟩, |P2z−,↑⟩, |P1z+,↓⟩, |P2z−,↓⟩). No |P2z+⟩ state is in the model. Rated S2 rather than S1 because it is a mislabelled state that the surrounding text lets the reader correct; no numerical result is affected.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 4 right column, after the fitted parameters

  that the order of the bands

• p. 4 right column, basis definition

  In the basis of

Judge's note: Page 4 image, right column after the fitted parameters: the letter T is printed in both kets. The basis definition a few lines above and the left column use P1z+ and P2z−. The text search of the article found no definition of T1/T2 states; T is otherwise the time-reversal operator. Evident fix: T -> P.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 5 reference 16

  O. Madelung, U. R. & Schulz, M.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the missing surname is Rössler (editors Madelung, Rössler, Schulz), which I cannot check from the files. The malformation itself is visible on the page 5 image: 'U. R.' stands alone as an author, and the entry mixes initials-first and surname-first order, unlike the other references. Looks like a BibTeX name mis-parse. The authors should supply the correct name.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 5 reference 17

  S. K. Mishra, S. S. & Jepsen, O.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the missing surname is Satpathy (Mishra, Satpathy and Jepsen, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 461), which I cannot check from the files. The malformation is visible on the page 5 image: 'S. S.' stands alone as an author and the name order is inconsistent within the entry. Same pattern as ref 16, a separate entry.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 1 right column

  the BixSb1−x

• p. 5 right column

  Bi1−xSbx alloy

• p. 1 right column, introduction

  Based on this analysis, the BixSb1−x

• p. 1 right column, introduction

  Since BixSb1−x is an alloy

Judge's note: Checked crops of p.1 right column and p.5 right column: both forms are printed as quoted. No definition of x anywhere in the paper reconciles them, and the p.1 statement about 'a small range of x' depends on which element x refers to. The inconsistency is internal to the PDF; the notation should be made uniform (which form is correct for the composition range is for the authors to say).

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send

• p. 4 right column, after Eq. (2)

  |P1+ z , ↑(↓)⟩and |P2+ z , ↑(↓)⟩, respectively

• p. 4 left column, Low energy effective model

  |P1+ z , ↑(↓)⟩and |P2− z , ↑(↓)⟩at Γ point

• p. 4 after Eq. 1

  |T 1+

• p. 4 after Eq. 1

  |T 2−

Judge's note: On the page 4 image (crop C012-a) the superscript on P2 after Eq. (2) is clearly '+'. The effective-model basis on the same page, and the p.3 analysis, use |P2−z⟩, and the band-inversion argument depends on the two states having opposite parity. Crop C012-c shows that after Eq. (1) the states carry the letter 'T' instead of 'P', a label defined nowhere else. Both are notation slips.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding

This finding is

wrong right unclear or overstated already corrected (erratum, later version)

I am an author of this paper Send