The SMILE Effect in the Beam Propagation Direction Affects the Beam Shaping of a Semiconductor Laser Bar Array
Toshihiko Yoshino
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Your English involves many grammatical or logical mistakes onL1,17-18,21,41,67,93,98,100,102- 103,106,110,125,145,154,155,156-157,162-163,167,182,190,199,202,234,241. Correct your English.
2. The 3rd equation in Eq. (1) (L124) is wrong.
3. Your theoretical calculation is based on a “thin lens” model, but, the actual lens shown in Figs. 5 and 7 looks a “thick lens”. Verify the validity of your “thin lens” model.
4. Figure 10 indicates that there is an appreciable difference between your Gaussian-beam and ZEMAX calculations. Explain why your and ZEMAX calculations are different from each other. Mention about which calculation is more correct and can well explain the actual observation.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Very poor and entire improvement is necessary.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We thanksfor your detailed comments, which really benefit our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and accordingly revised our manuscript. The point by point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed below, and our responses start with dashes “--”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have modelled 3D spatial SMILE effect, accounting for temperature factor and mechanical stress in order to optimize response of laser diodes. Owing to the importance of the task for purposes of photonics research, the contribution could find industrial scale application to develop instrumentation for optical and nonlinear optical technologies and materials research. The latter statement is argued, due to authors' simulations and experimental proof of their theory and model functions presented and discussed in the paper. It is organized well and could be of interest in the readers of Photonics.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor English corrections are needed.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We thanksfor your detailed comments, which really benefit our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and accordingly revised our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this manuscript, the authors proposed the investigation of 3D SMILE effect. Theoretical, numerical and experimental studies have been conducted to study the 3D SMILE effect on the beam shape quality. This topic is interesting to the broad readership of Photonics and this manuscript has the potential to be published. However, this manuscript is not organized well. Lots of key information and discussion are missed. To make this manuscript acceptable, the authors are required to address the following comments well.
1. The introduction is not sufficient. What is SMILE effect? And the research status can be further improved.
2. Please add SPACE between value and unit throughout the manuscript, including the figures.
3. In the caption of Fig.2, the authors mentioned the data point looks like standing for a single emitter. Is this figure cited from other papers? If so, please add the citation. If not, please clarify what the black data point stands for.
4. In Eq.1, what does lambda stand for? Please add the corresponding description.
5. Please use Eq instead of Equ.
6. Please double-check Eq.6 and Eq.7. They seem not correct.
7. Please modify the layout and index format of all equations to meet the requirements of the journal.
8. From line 156 to 157, the authors mentioned that increasing FAC lens focal length will increase the residual divergence angle. However, based on Eq. 10 and Fig. 6, a higher focal length is supposed to induce a lower residual divergence angle. Please clarify this discrepancy.
9. The authors mentioned conducting investigations on 3D SMILE effects. However, I cannot tell the 3D conditions in the theoretical, numerical, and experimental parts. Please explain clearly the 3D conditions in all those parts.
10. In line 179 and 181, please move the full name of COC and CS forward to the place where they are used the first time.
11. From line 187 to 190, I cannot get the points that the authors are trying to deliver. Where are the data and results? Without showing those evidence it’s difficult to evaluate the statement.
12. The simulation setup and detailed information are missing. And the current description is confusing, and I cannot tell which accounts for simulation and what is included in experiments. Please provide detailed information on the simulation and experiments.
13. The experimental characterization of beam shape quality is missing. Please provide them.
14. In-depth analysis is required to explain the difference between experimental results and theoretical calculations.
Based on the abovementioned comments, this manuscript is recommended for major revision. A revised manuscript is required.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We thanksfor your detailed comments, which really benefit our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and accordingly revised our manuscript. The point by point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed below, and our responses start with dashes “--”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The responses to my questions 3 ad 4 are quite unsatisfactory in both response letters and text, being off the true meanings of my questions and not convincing.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We apologize for the incorrect answer and for deviating from the true meanings of the questions in our responses. We also appreciate your kind suggestions. We have made modifications, so please refer to the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have answered most of the comments well. Here are some additional concerns in the current manuscript. Please carefully address them.
1. In line 56, it should be the LAD facet instead of the laser facet.
2. In the caption of Fig.2, please use an affirmative tone to describe the black data point's interpretation.
3. In line 197, use "1/(e^2)" instead of "1/e2".
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We thanks for your detailed comments, which really benefit our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and accordingly revised our manuscript. The point by point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed below, and our responses start with dashes “--”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I don't re-revise your article to avoid undesirable more than once or endless revision for a single submission.
Author Response
We appreciate your insightful comments, which greatly enhance the quality of our manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the English language usage and rectified several errors. Further details can be found in our revised manuscript.
