# Strontium Ferromolybdate-Based Magnetic Tunnel Junctions
## 4 Conclusions  
The practical implementation of SFMO-based MTJs requires attention to a number of specific aspects:  
* In the case of a lower effective electronegativity of the barrier material compared to SFMO, e.g., for MgO, La\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\), BaTiO\({}_{3}\), SrTiO\({}_{3}\), LaAlO\({}_{3}\), and ZnO, the attraction of more electrons to the SFMO side of the interface increases the occupation of the spin-down states by electrons near the interface. This increases the density of states at the Fermi level and, thus, the tunnel current.
* The magnetic offset field caused by magnetic coupling due to interfacial waviness is determined not only by the surface roughness (amplitude of spatial waves) but also by the width or spacing of surface features (wavelength of spatial waves). A slowly changing surface profile corresponding to a wavy surface rather than a rough one is beneficial.
* The thickness of the SFMO layer should be much larger than that of the magnetic dead layer at the surface/interface amounting to about 10 nm.
* The presence of a magnetically disordered interface layer, as well as spin-independent tunneling through the barrier layer, deteriorates the TMR.
* The TMR in SFMO-based MTJs may be enhanced by means of (111)-oriented SFMO thin films. This is attributed to the influence of antiphase boundaries on charge carrier scattering in SFMO.  
The following are available online at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12052717/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12052717/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12052717/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12052717/s1)), Figure S1: AFM image and determination of the surface roughness of a Pt(111) electrode using the software package Gwyddion, Figure S2: AFM images of SFMO thin films deposited by multi-target reactive sputtering at 600 \({}^{\circ}\)C taken at three different points with a scan area of 1.05 \(\times\) 1.05 \(\upmu\)m\({}^{2}\), Figure S3: Set of AFM images with different scan size of a SFMO thin film deposited by ceramic target magnetron sputtering and crystallized at 900 \({}^{\circ}\)C, Figure S4: Film thickness distribution of a SrMoO\({}_{4}\) thin film deposited onto a 150 mm platinized silicon wafer.  
Conceptualization, G.S.; methodology, G.S., N.A.S., and D.A.K.; software, E.A.; validation, G.S. and N.A.S.; formal analysis, E.A.; investigation, G.S., E.A., N.A.S., E.T., N.K., D.A.K., and T.S.I.; resources, E.T., D.A.K., and G.G.; data curation, E.A.; writing--original draft preparation, G.S.; writing--review and editing, G.S. and N.A.S.; visualization, E.A.; supervision, N.A.S. and G.G.; project administration, N.A.S. and G.G.; funding acquisition, N.A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This work was funded by EU project H2020-MSCA-RISE-2017-778308-SPINMULTIFILM. AFM studies were performed at the Center for Shared Use \"Material Science and Metallurgy\" at the National University of Science and Technology \"MISiS\" and were supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (projects 075-15-2021-696 and FSME-2020-0031).  
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.