Note about Passive Continuous Variable Quantum Key Distribution over Turbulent Atmospheric Channel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer never accepts the paper in its present form. Therefore, the following comments will try to revise the paper to be applicable for publication. My decision will be accepted or rejected based on the second round.
(1) The related work section is missing. Authors are recommended to add a new section called literature review after the introduction section to review some existing works and their limitations.
(2) The background section is also missing. Authors are recommended to add a new section called preliminaries after the related work section to describe the system model, components, a tools/algorithms.
(3) The proposed solution should be presented by adding figures/ flowchart
(4) The performance evaluation is also missing. The main goal of it is to evaluate the performance and compare the proposed method with three/four existing works. Please add figures/ tables to make sure the readability of the result.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper is presented an atmospheric channel model based on atmospheric turbulence bubble combined with an elliptic-beam model, which provides the feasibility of the THz CVQKD with high-rate data transmission using wireless spectrum resources. The author has presented numerical simulations for show that the performance of the THz CVQKD system is improved while employing an AO unit in detection to measure and correct wave front distortions against the atmospheric turbulence.
In its current form, the paper does not present sufficiently relevant results, or that meet the scope of the Journal, to justify its publication. I suggest a comprehensive review of the paper by the authors.
1- Due to the small length of the paper and the results presented, I suggest that the authors change the title to "On Note about ..."
2- The state of the art is poor and must be improved. Authors should include in the introduction but recent works, with presentation of the results obtained;
3- The axes of figures 3b and 4b must be identified in the paper;
4- The contributions of the results should be discussed in more detail. What is the gain in practical matters; What is the significant contribution of the proposed use of the AO; What is the paper's contribution to the Journal's body of knowledge;
5- The conclusion is very succinct, it does not present arguments to demonstrate the contribution of the results, and the significant contribution of the methodology in comparison with the commonly used methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It still needed to revise version. So, the following comments to improve credibility of paper.
1-Separate related work section from introduction part. Please create new section called “literature review”.
2-Figure 2 is missing.
3-Please add limitation and future work paragraph in end of conclusion section.
4-Where is performance evaluation section?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carried out an extensive review of the paper, submitting a new version, with the corrections and clarifications requested. I consider that the current version can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:Thank you very much for your careful review to our manuscript. It is our honor to receive your comments with great guidance.
Thanks very much for your accepting the current version for publication.
However, based on some comments from others, we have modified the minor inappropriate contents in the manuscript.
Best Regards
All Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for addressing the reviewer's comments. I have accepted in current form.
