Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41753917›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2026

The Evolution of Lithography: From Resolution Scaling to Manufacturing Constraints.

Heejoon Chae, Hyunje Park, Dae Joon Kang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Heejoon ChaeDepartment of Physics, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066, Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu, Suwon-si 16419, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9859-7495
Hyunje ParkDepartment of Science Education, Jeonju University, 235, Cheonjam-ro, Wansan-gu, Jeonju-si 55069, Jeonbuk-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7567-2707
Dae Joon KangDepartment of Physics, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066, Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu, Suwon-si 16419, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4030-4071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lithographic patterning continues to evolve under the dual pressure of ever-finer features and manufacturable, cost-effective integration. Beyond headline resolution, industrial adoption is increasingly determined by a small set of coupled metrics: throughput, overlay (registration), defectivity, and cost, as well as by how these trade-offs shift with materials, substrate form factors, and integration flows. Here, we review lithographic techniques across three eras: traditional methods (pre-1990s), non-conventional innovations (1990s), and contemporary advancements (post-2000s), with an explicit goal that goes beyond compilation. Specifically, we provide a decision framework for interpreting each method using the same manufacturing-relevant criteria. For each class of technique, we summarize the operating principle and representative process routes, then map the dominant bottlenecks to the metric that ultimately limits scale-up. This cross-cutting lens clarifies why many emerging methods are compelling at the physics level yet remain constrained at the system level, where process windows, in-line control, and compatibility with existing fabrication ecosystems govern viability. By connecting mechanism-level innovation to manufacturing-level constraints, this review offers practical guidance for researchers and engineers seeking to position nanolithography options for applications ranging from high-volume semiconductor production to agile prototyping and materials- or substrate-limited devices.

Indexed as

lithography evolutionnanofabricationnanolithographynanopatterning

Identifiers

PMID41753917
PMCPMC12943502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.