Reply to cond-mat/0211660: Comments on "A model for fatigue in ferroelectric perovskite thin films" published in Appl. Phys. Lett, 76, 1060 (2000); addendum, ibid. p.3655

TL;DR

This paper is a detailed rebuttal addressing criticisms of previous work on polarization fatigue in ferroelectric thin films, clarifying misunderstandings and defending the original findings.

Contribution

It provides a point-by-point response to criticisms of earlier publications on ferroelectric fatigue, reaffirming the validity of the original results.

Findings

Criticisms were systematically addressed and refuted.

The original model's validity was defended against critiques.

The reply clarifies misunderstandings about polarization fatigue mechanisms.

Abstract

This is a reply to cond-mat/0211660 by A.K. Taganstev, which consists of a set of criticisms of our publications on polarisation fatigue in Applied Physics Letters. Although his comments were rejected by Applied Physics Letters more than two years ago, Dr Tagantsev has published them in this archive on 29/11/2002. We reply to each of his criticisms here.