Next Article in Journal
Applied Machine Learning: New Methods, Applications, and Achievements
Next Article in Special Issue
Numerical Equivalent Acoustic Material for Air-Filled Porous Absorption Simulations in Finite Different Time Domain Methods: Design and Comparison
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of Unknown Polymorphic Patterns Using Feature-Extracting Part of a Convolutional Autoencoder
Previous Article in Special Issue
Band Gap Properties in Metamaterial Beam with Spatially Varying Interval Uncertainties
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

From Micro-Perforates to Micro-Capillary Absorbers: Analysis of Their Broadband Absorption Performance through Modeling and Experiments

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(19), 10844; https://doi.org/10.3390/app131910844
by Cédric Maury 1 and Teresa Bravo 2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(19), 10844; https://doi.org/10.3390/app131910844
Submission received: 8 September 2023 / Revised: 22 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 29 September 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article "From micro-perforates to micro-capillary absorbers: analysis of their broadband absorption performance through modelings and experiments" is well organized and shows merit in the field of research. Need minor revision to process.

1)   MCP resonant absorber range need to be mentioned and provide the potential applications at low frequency band. 

2) Absorption performance at the individual resonators need to eloborate

3) Comparative analysis before the conclusion with past literature will project the novelty of the work. 

NA

Author Response

Please, see document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Concerning the manuscript titled “From micro-perforates to micro-capillary absorbers analysis of their broadband absorption performance through modelling and experiments,” reviewer would like the authors to clear the following items:

(i) The use of both simulations and experiments for what purpose? To verify the simulation results or to investigate the proposed structure?

(ii) Explanation for the lack of Conclusion section.

(iii) Reasons for choosing the parameters of micro-porous panels as shown in Table 1.

(iv) Add scale bar for Figures 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and Figures 2(b), 2(c).

(v) What are the differences between Figures 3(a) and 3(b)?

(vi) In line 217, what does Z1 stand for?

(vii) Comparison on performance between the author’s work and the existent publications?

Decisions: Depending on the response from the authors, the manuscript will be accepted to publish or not.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English of the manuscript is acceptance.

Author Response

Please, see document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has been improved and meets the required quality and impact of the Journal.

It is suggested to accept the manuscript in this form for publication in Applied Sciences.

The authors should check the manuscript again to avoid the typing errors and improve the English.

Back to TopTop