Interesting, that's pretty nonstandard.

I would assume that in order to achieve some integration over points of different roughness you should correlate your rotational frequency v and your dwell time t, so maybe choose t≈1/v or at least t>1/5v.

Whatever you do, can you let us know whether the experiment improved anything?

Dear Sameera Perera ,

Have you already tried at least two different position (90° shifted) in order to see that there is some effect? If yes and the effect is significant and you do not accept simply collect data in two different position then I agree with Jürgen Weippert .

Emitted electrons are collected form largerer angle ... so this rotation may not have any effect.

Not sure if I got your point - you want to rotate during data acquisition? The conventional use of azimuthal rotation in XPS is to minimize the surface roughness during sputter-etching with Ar+ ion beam (so-called Zalar rotation). This is good for poly-crystalline samples as differently oriented crystallites etch more evenly than with the stationary sample. If used for depth profiling the depth resolution is greatly improved.

I never heard of anyone rotating the sample during data acquisition.

Thanks all for your prompt replies. Maybe I did not make my self clear when presenting my question. I'm not collecting data while rotating my sample. As G. Greczynski mentioned I'm rotating the sample during etching with Ar+ ion beam. how is the rotation speed going to affect the surface etching? as an example If I sputter for 30 s in a single etch cycle, ideally how many rotations would be enough to minimize the induced surface roughness? Again, thanks all for sharing your knowledge. I really appreciate that.

There is no simple answer to that - it depends entirely on your sample.