Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Tunability of Room Temperature Ferromagnetism in Spintronic Semiconductors through Non-magnetic Atoms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding non-magnetic aluminum to nickel ferrite tunes its room-temperature magnetism by reshuffling which iron sites carry the moment.

desk verdict First site-resolved XMCD decomposition of Al-substituted nickel ferrite; the tuning story is plausible but rests on a model-dependent fit and no direct occupancy probe. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02610 v1 pith:F6TVZZIP submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Brett Leedahl , Zahra Abooalizadeh , Kyle LeBlanc , Alexander Moewes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nickelferriteroomtemperatureferromagnetismXMCDaluminumsubstitutionsiteoccupancycrystalfieldmultipletcalculationspintronicsspinelferrites
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that room-temperature ferromagnetism in a spintronic semiconductor can be tuned by substituting a non-magnetic atom, aluminum, into nickel ferrite, NiFe$_{2-x}$Al$_x$O$_4$ with $x=0$, $0.5$, and $1.5$. Its central proposal is that Al$^{3+}$ preferentially occupies octahedral Fe$^{3+}$ sites and, to a lesser extent, tetrahedral Fe$^{3+}$ sites, so the populations of Fe$^{3+}$ tetrahedral, Fe$^{2+}$ octahedral, and Fe$^{3+}$ octahedral sites are reshuffled rather than simply diluted. Because each iron site has a distinct magnetic fingerprint, the bulk moment can move non-monotonically: the measured total moments are 0.148, 0.092, and 0.182 Bohr magnetons for the three compositions. If this is right, it offers a way to fine-tune magnetism in a magnetic semiconductor while reportedly keeping its electronic structure largely intact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) at the Fe L$_{2,3}$-edges combined with crystal field multiplet calculations. The calculated spectra decompose the measured dichroism into three fixed site-specific components, Fe$^{3+}$ in tetrahedral ($T_d$) coordination, Fe$^{2+}$ in octahedral ($O_h$) coordination, and Fe$^{3+}$ in octahedral ($O_h$) coordination, and a linear sum of these three components is fit to each experimental spectrum. A sign reversal of the spin operators for the tetrahedral site encodes the antiferromagnetic coupling between tetrahedral and octahedral iron. This decomposition is what lets the paper read site-occupancy changes off the spectra and attribute the non-monotonic bulk moment to competing site-specific trends.

What would settle it

Measure aluminum and iron site occupancies directly on the same $x=0.5$ and $x=1.5$ powders, for example with $^{27}$Al solid-state NMR or Al K-edge X-ray absorption, and compare with an independent iron-site probe such as Mössbauer spectroscopy; if aluminum does not preferentially occupy Fe$^{3+}$ octahedral sites, or if the fitted site populations disagree with those probes, the proposed tuning mechanism would not be established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the magnetism of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ can be tuned by aluminum substitution because Al$^{3+}$ does not act as a simple magnetic diluent. Its strong preference for a 3+ octahedral environment drives it into Fe$^{3+}$ octahedral sites and, more mildly, Fe$^{3+}$ tetrahedral sites, progressively extinguishing the Fe$^{3+}$ octahedral XMCD contribution while the Fe$^{2+}$ octahedral contribution grows. The two shrinking Fe$^{3+}$ signals largely cancel each other in the bulk, which is why the net moment first falls (from 0.148 to 0.092 Bohr magnetons between $x=0$ and $x=0.5$) and then rises (to 0.182 Bohr magnetons at $x=1.5$) as the Fe$^{2+}$ channel becomes significant. The authors conclude that site occupancy ratios of the ferromagnetic atoms, and therefore the bulk ferromagnetism, can be deliberately engineered by choosing non-magnetic atoms with known coordination preferences.

Load-bearing premise

The decomposition assumes the three calculated iron-site spectra stay unchanged as aluminum is added and that aluminum substitutes only into Fe$^{3+}$ sites, mostly octahedral, yet the paper does not directly measure where the aluminum sits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding aluminum to NiFe$_2$O$_4$ suppresses the Fe$^{3+}$ octahedral magnetic contribution and strengthens the Fe$^{2+}$ octahedral contribution, so magnetism is no longer a monotonic function of magnetic-ion concentration.
  • The same three-component decomposition can predict the XMCD line shapes of other spinel ferrites once their Fe$^{2+}$/Fe$^{3+}$ ratios and inversion parameters are specified.
  • Because the electronic structure is reported to stay largely unchanged, magnetic tuning by non-magnetic substitution could be applied without sacrificing the semiconductor properties needed for spintronic devices.
  • The inversion parameter of a spinel can be estimated from the fitted XMCD component weights, giving an x-ray-based complement to structural methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the site-occupancy mechanism is general, other non-magnetic 3+ cations with octahedral preference, such as Ga$^{3+}$ or Sc$^{3+}$, should produce similar non-monotonic moment trajectories with the minimum at a composition set by the strength of their site preference.
  • The mechanism implies a testable prediction: the Fe$^{2+}$ octahedral XMCD weight should grow monotonically with aluminum content, and an independent probe of Fe$^{2+}$ population should show the same growth.
  • A consequence the authors do not pursue is that the exchange balance among the remaining iron sites shifts as Fe$^{2+}$ grows, so temperature-dependent magnetization should show composition-dependent Curie temperatures and possibly altered coercivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports soft X-ray absorption and XMCD measurements on sol-gel synthesized NiFe2-xAlxO4 (x = 0, 0.5, 1.5) and combines them with crystal-field multiplet calculations. The authors decompose the Fe L2,3 XMCD spectra into three components assigned to Fe3+ in tetrahedral sites, Fe2+ in octahedral sites, and Fe3+ in octahedral sites, and observe that increasing Al content weakens the Fe3+ signals while increasing the Fe2+ signal. They use XMCD sum rules to obtain spin and orbital moments, reporting total moments of 0.148, 0.092, and 0.182 Bohr magnetons for x = 0, 0.5, and 1.5, respectively. The central claim is that Al3+ preferentially replaces Fe3+ in octahedral (and to a lesser degree tetrahedral) sites, thereby tuning the site occupancies and hence the bulk magnetism of the ferrite while leaving the electronic structure largely unchanged.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the work would be a valuable proof-of-concept: it would show that non-magnetic substitution can tune the magnetic moment of a room-temperature ferromagnetic semiconductor, and it would demonstrate the power of element- and site-specific XMCD for unraveling competing contributions. The use of XMCD sum rules to obtain independent spin and orbital moments is a definite strength, and the authors are transparent about the known limitations of the sum rules. However, as presented, the site-occupancy mechanism is underdetermined by the experimental evidence, and at least one internal inconsistency (the charge balance of the inferred Fe2+ increase) must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and Discussion, Fig. 2] The central claim that Al substitution tunes the Fe site occupancies rests entirely on fitting the measured Fe L2,3 XMCD as a fixed linear combination of three crystal-field multiplet components (Fe3+ Td, Fe2+ Oh, Fe3+ Oh). The same components are fitted to the data and then used as the explanation of the trends, so the decomposition is partly circular. No fitted occupancy weights, uncertainties, goodness-of-fit measures, or residuals are reported, and no independent validation of the component line shapes (e.g., by measuring reference compounds or by allowing crystal-field parameters to vary across compositions) is provided. I request that the authors report the fitted weights with uncertainties and demonstrate, through a quantitative fitting analysis, that the three-component model is uniquely identified and that the weights are proportional to site populations.
  2. [Results and Discussion, paragraph beginning 'That is to say, as Fe3+ Oh sites become filled...'] The inferred increase of the Fe2+ component with increasing Al content is not charge-balanced under the nominal stoichiometry. For NiFe2-xAlxO4, with Ni2+ and Al3+ and four oxygen anions, the average Fe valence must be exactly +3 for all x; any substantial Fe2+ population must be compensated by Ni3+, cation vacancies, or oxygen non-stoichiometry. The manuscript proposes no compensating mechanism and presents no evidence for one. Without an independent measure of Fe2+ content (e.g., Mössbauer spectroscopy, valence-band XPS, or a refined structural model), the growing Fe2+ component in the fit may be an artifact rather than a physical site population.
  3. [Results and Discussion, paragraph beginning 'Furthermore, as observed previously,[19]...'] The site-occupancy mechanism assumes that Al3+ preferentially occupies the octahedral Fe sites, but this preference is taken from reference [19] and is not established by any structural or spectroscopic probe on the present samples. No XRD refinement, EXAFS, Al XANES, or Mössbauer data are shown. Because the entire tuning mechanism depends on where Al sits, the lack of direct evidence for Al site occupancy in these specific samples is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either provide such evidence or clearly frame the site preference as an assumption and discuss how its failure would affect the conclusions.
  4. [Results and Discussion, sum-rule paragraph] The non-monotonic total moments (0.148, 0.092, 0.182 μB) are used to support the tuning claim, but the experimental errors shown in brackets in Fig. 2 are not discussed in relation to these differences. Given the authors' own statement that the absolute values of the moments are of secondary importance, the statistical significance of the non-monotonic sequence should be addressed explicitly; otherwise the central trend may not be robust. This is particularly important because the differences between the three values are small in absolute terms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in 'solid state state physics' (duplicated 'state').
  2. [Throughout] The unit 'bohr magnetons' should be spelled 'Bohr magnetons' and, more importantly, the moments should be specified as per Fe atom or per formula unit; the sum rules give moments per absorbing atom, and this should be stated explicitly wherever the values 0.148, 0.092, and 0.182 are quoted.
  3. [Experimental and Calculation Details] The description of free parameters lists 'oxidation state' as a free parameter, but the oxidation state is the nominal input configuration in a multiplet calculation rather than a continuously varied parameter; this wording is misleading and should be clarified.
  4. [Results and Discussion, Fig. 2] The caption states that the experimentally derived spin and orbital moments are shown in the panels, but the main text does not give numerical values for the spin and orbital moments separately, only their sums. Reporting both components would aid reproducibility and allow readers to compare with literature values.
  5. [Conclusion] The statement that the electronic structure is unaffected by Al is deferred entirely to the Supplemental Material; a representative figure or quantitative metric in the main text would strengthen the claim that the desirable electronic properties are retained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-monotonic moments are obtained from XMCD sum rules independent of the multiplet fit, and the only self-citation is external prior work used for the Al-site preference.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The headline magnetic-moment trend (0.148, 0.092, 0.182 mu_B) is obtained directly from XMCD sum rules applied to the experimental left/right circularly polarized XAS difference, which is independent of the crystal-field multiplet decomposition used for site assignment. The multiplet components are calculated with standard Cowan/Haverkort code for fixed oxidation states and local symmetries, and the superposition is then fit to the experimental spectra to produce site-occupancy ratios; this is a standard model-based decomposition, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction of a held-out quantity. The paper's statement that it can 'predict the spectral shapes of spinels with different ratios' is a forward-model statement, not a claim that the fitted weights were predicted before the fit. The only notable self-citation is reference [19], which shares co-author Z. Abooalizadeh and is used to support the Al3+ octahedral-site preference; however, that is a separate prior experimental study and not a result generated by the present XMCD analysis, so the present claim does not rest solely on a self-citation. The main weaknesses, such as fixed component line shapes, absence of a direct Al-site probe, and the lack of an explicit charge-balance mechanism for the inferred Fe2+ increase, are underdetermination and validity concerns rather than circularity. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper is equivalent by construction to the claimed conclusion, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on fitted multiplet parameters and an assumed aluminum site preference. No new physical entities are introduced. The total moments from XMCD sum rules provide a partially independent anchor for the non-monotonic trend.

free parameters (4)
  • Crystal field strength (10Dq) per Fe site = not reported in main text
    Free parameter in the Cowan/Haverkort multiplet calculations; tuned to reproduce each Fe L2,3 XMCD component and affects peak positions and intensities.
  • Slater integral scaling factor = not reported in main text
    Scales intra-atomic Coulomb and exchange integrals; adjusted to match the experimental spectra and influences line shapes and relative intensities.
  • Lorentzian and Gaussian broadening widths = not reported in main text
    Convolved with calculated spectra to simulate lifetime and experimental broadening; chosen by hand to match experimental conditions.
  • Fe site occupancy weights (linear combination coefficients) = reported qualitatively; exact values per sample not tabulated in main text
    Extracted by fitting the sum of three calculated components to the experimental XMCD spectra; these weights are the evidence for the claimed site tuning.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math XMCD sum rules yield valid spin and orbital moments after saturation in a 0.5 T field
    Used to compute the per-sample moments in Figure 2; the authors acknowledge approximations including zero spin-quadrupole coupling and uncertain d-hole count.
  • domain assumption Crystal field multiplet calculations accurately reproduce Fe L2,3 XMCD for each site
    The reference spectra are generated with the Cowan/Haverkort code using fitted parameters; no independent verification of the parameter values is provided.
  • domain assumption The experimental XMCD spectrum is a weighted linear sum of the three calculated components
    Used to derive site occupancies and trends; assumes aluminum-induced changes appear only in the weights, not in the local crystal fields or covalency.
  • domain assumption Al3+ preferentially occupies octahedral 3+ iron sites and avoids 2+ sites
    Central to the proposed mechanism; taken from reference [19] and chemical preference, but not measured directly in this paper.
  • domain assumption Fe2+ tetrahedral occupancy is negligible
    Excluded from the fit; the authors estimate that including Fe2+ Td adds less than 0.1 atoms per formula unit, so they judge it insignificant.
  • domain assumption Tetrahedral Fe3+ couples antiferromagnetically to octahedral Fe sites
    A sign reversal of the spin operators in the calculation is required to match experiment, fixing the relative sign between tetrahedral and octahedral components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunability of Room Temperature Ferromagnetism in Spintronic Semiconductors through Non-magnetic Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6TVZZIP

@misc{pith2026190802610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunability of Room Temperature Ferromagnetism in Spintronic Semiconductors through Non-magnetic Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6TVZZIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02610}
}
abstract

The implementation and control of room temperature ferromagnetism (RTFM) by adding magnetic atoms to a semiconductor's lattice has been one of the most important problems in solid state state physics in the last decade. Herein we report for the first time, to our knowledge, on the mechanism that allows RTFM to be tuned by the inclusion of \emph{non-magnetic} aluminum in nickel ferrite. This material, NiFe$_{2-x}$Al$_x$O$_4$ (x=0, 0.5, 1.5), has already shown much promise for magnetic semiconductor technologies, and we are able to add to its versatility technological viability with our results. The site occupancies and valencies of Fe atoms (Fe$^{3+}$ T$_d$, Fe$^{2+}$ O$_h$, and Fe$^{3+}$ O$_h$) can be methodically controlled by including aluminum. Using the fact that aluminum strongly prefers a 3+ octahedral environment, we can selectively fill iron sites with aluminum atoms, and hence specifically tune the magnetic contributions for each of the iron sites, and therefore the bulk material as well. Interestingly, the influence of the aluminum is weak on the electronic structure (supplemental material), allowing one to retain the desirable electronic properties while achieving desirable magnetic properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02610 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. XMCD is an element- and orbital-specific technique. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Calculated (magenta) and experimental (blue) XMCD spectrum at the Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Mozaffari, Z

    M. Mozaffari, Z. Abooalizadeh, and J. Amighian, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 323, 2997 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    V. O. Garlea, R. Jin, D. Mandrus, B. Roessli, Q. Huang, M. Miller, A. J. Schultz, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 066404 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    Liu and L

    Y. Liu and L. Gao, Carbon 43, 47 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    Kajiwara, K

    Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K. Takanashi, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Nature 464, 262 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    J. Li, L. R. Shelford, P. Shafer, A. Tan, J. X. Deng, P. S. Keatley, C. Hwang, E. Arenholz, G. van der Laan, R. J. Hicken, and Z. Q. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 076602 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Luders, A

    U. Luders, A. Barthelemy, M. Bibes, K. Bouzehouane, S. Fusil, E. Jacquet, J.-P. Contour, J.-F. Bobo, J. Fontcu- berta, and A. Fert, Adv. Mater. 18, 1733 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Y. Liu, Y. Wu, D. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, and J. Yang, J. Mater. Sci.-Mater. El. 24, 1900 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    J. Ma, J. Hu, Z. Li, and C.-W. Nan, Adv. Mater. 23, 1062 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Haneda, Can

    K. Haneda, Can. J. Phys. 65, 1233 (1987)

    1987

  2. [9]

    B. D. Cullity and C. D. Graham, Introduction to Mag- netic Materials , 2nd ed. (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    Luders, M

    U. Luders, M. Bibes, J.-F. Bobo, M. Cantoni, R. Bertacco, and J. Fontcuberta, Phys. Rev. B 71, 134419 (2005)

    2005

  4. [11]

    Q. C. Sun, H. Sims, D. Mazumdar, J. X. Ma, B. S. Holinsworth, K. R. O’Neal, G. Kim, W. H. Butler, A. Gupta, and J. L. Musfeldt, Phys. Rev. B 86, 205106 (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    S. N. Dolia, R. Sharma, M. P. Sharma, and N. S. Saxena, Indian J. Pure Appl. Phys 447, 774 (2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    Haetge, C

    J. Haetge, C. Suchomski, and T. Brezesinski, Inorgan. Chem. 49, 11619 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Balaji, R

    S. Balaji, R. K. Selvan, L. J. Berchmans, S. Angappan, K. Subramanian, and C. Augustin, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 119, 119 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    Szotek, W

    Z. Szotek, W. M. Temmerman, D. K¨ odderitzsch, A. Svane, L. Petit, and H. Winter, Phys. Rev. B 74, 174431 (2006)

    2006

  9. [16]

    van der Laan, C

    G. van der Laan, C. M. B. Henderson, R. A. D. Pat- trick, S. S. Dhesi, P. F. Schofield, E. Dudzik, and D. J. Vaughan, Phys. Rev. B 59, 4314 (1999)

    1999

  10. [17]

    R. J. Green, T. Z. Regier, B. Leedahl, J. A. McLeod, X. H. Xu, G. S. Chang, E. Z. Kurmaev, and A. Moewes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 167401 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    J. Wang, B. Lian, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036805 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    T. D. Boyko, R. J. Green, R. Dronskowski, and A. Moewes, J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 12754 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Perez, J

    I. Perez, J. A. McLeod, R. J. Green, R. Escamilla, V. Or- tiz, and A. Moewes, Phys. Rev. B 90, 014510 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    R. D. Cowan, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 58, 808 (1968)

    1968

  15. [23]

    R. J. Green, G. S. Chang, X. Y. Zhang, A. Dinia, E. Z. Kurmaev, and A. Moewes, Phys. Rev. B 83, 115207 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    W., Sangiovanni, G., Hansmann, P., Toschi, A., Lu, Y., and Macke, S., Euro

    Haverkort, M. W., Sangiovanni, G., Hansmann, P., Toschi, A., Lu, Y., and Macke, S., Euro. Phys. Lett. 108, 57004 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Y. Lu, M. Hoppner, O. Gunnarsson, and M. W. Haverkort, Phys. Rev. B 90, 085102 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    J. J. Sakurai, Advanced Quantum Mechanics (Addison- Wesley Publishing, 1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    Carra, B

    P. Carra, B. T. Thole, M. Altarelli, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 694 (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    B. T. Thole, P. Carra, F. Sette, and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1943 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    R. A. D. Pattrick, G. van der Laan, M. B. C. Henerson, P. Kuiper, E. Dudzik, and D. J. Vaughan, Eur. J. Miner. 14, 1095 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    A. J. Achkar, T. Z. Regier, H. Wadati, Y.-J. Kim, H. Zhang, and D. G. Hawthorn, Phys. Rev. B 83, 081106 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    van der Laan, J

    G. van der Laan, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 430, 012127 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Piamonteze, P

    C. Piamonteze, P. Miedema, and F. M. F. de Groot, Phys. Rev. B 80, 184410 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    E. C. Wasinger, F. M. F. de Groot, B. Hedman, K. O. Hodgson, and E. I. Solomon, J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 125, 12894 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Carta, M

    D. Carta, M. F. Casula, A. Falqui, D. Loche, G. Moun- tjoy, C. Sangregorio, and A. Corrias, J. Phys. Chem. C 113, 8606 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    C. M. Richter, J.-M. Mariot, O. Heckmann, L. Kjeldgaard, S. B. Mun, S. C. Fadley, U. L¨ uders, J.-F. Bobo, P. De Padova, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, and K. Hricovini, Eur. Phys. J-Spec. Top. 169, 175 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    [37– 43]) for a thorough discussion of the effect of Al alloying on the electronic properties of NiFe 2O4

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/ sup- plemental/DOIHERE (which includes further Refs. [37– 43]) for a thorough discussion of the effect of Al alloying on the electronic properties of NiFe 2O4

  29. [37]

    E. Z. Kurmaev, R. G. Wilks, A. Moewes, L. D. Finkel- stein, S. N. Shamin, and J. Kuneˇ s, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165127 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    T. M. Tolhurst, B. Leedahl, J. L. Andrews, P. M. Marley, S. Banerjee, and A. Moewes, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 15798 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    R. J. Green, D. A. Zatsepin, A. Hunt, E. Z. Kurmaev, N. V. Gavrilov, and A. Moewes, J. Appl. Phys. 113 (2013), 10.1063/1.4795262

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Patange, S

    S. Patange, S. E. Shirsath, K. Lohar, S. Jadhav, N. Kulkarni, and K. Jadhav, Physica B 406, 663 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Eisebitt and W

    S. Eisebitt and W. Eberhardt, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Re- lat. Phenom. 110-111, 335 (2000), soft X Ray Emission Spectroscopy

    2000

  34. [42]

    Anspoks, A

    A. Anspoks, A. Kalinko, R. Kalendarev, and A. Kuzmin, Phys. Rev. B 86, 174114 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Tangcharoen, W

    T. Tangcharoen, W. Klysubun, C. Kongmark, and W. Pecharapa, Phys. Status Solidi A 211, 1903 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    R. H. Kodama, A. E. Berkowitz, E. J. McNiff, Jr., and S. Foner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 394 (1996)

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.