Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, ISSN: 0927-0248, Vol: 246, Page: 111909
2022
- 9Citations
- 21Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Recently, the Cox–Strack method for contact resistivity determination is increasingly used in the context of photovoltaic cell engineering. This document reviews the literature published in the period 2017–2021 containing Cox–Strack measurement results. As the Cox–Strack method is error-prone, we analyze this literature on the possible inaccuracies that may arise due to (1) approximations by Cox and Strack, (2) the choice of contact diameters, and (3) resistive coatings. On the basis of our findings, more than half of the 93 reviewed articles may need additional analysis for an accurate quantification of the lower reported contact resistance values. The article concludes with recommendations for an improved Cox–Strack methodology.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024822003294; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85136010861&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0927024822003294; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know