Next Article in Journal
The Conditional Probability of Correlating East Pacific Earthquakes with NOAA Electron Bursts
Previous Article in Journal
“Move” Their Brain: Motor Competence Mediates the Relationship of Physical Activity and Executive Functions in Children
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Microwave SINIS Detectors

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10525; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010525
by Mikhail Tarasov 1,*, Aleksandra Gunbina 2, Artem Chekushkin 1, Renat Yusupov 1, Valerian Edelman 3 and Valery Koshelets 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10525; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010525
Submission received: 3 October 2022 / Revised: 13 October 2022 / Accepted: 17 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper reports a review about the microwave SINIS detectors. This review reports the main characteristics of this kind of detector, performances, and the fabrication technology.  I suggest to add a section about the possible applications of this technology stressing its added value. 

Author Response

According to your advice: "I suggest to add a section about the possible applications of this technology stressing its added value."

We added  Section 7.  Applications of SINIS detectors (page 13) (see attaced)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

no comments

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for reading our manuscript. Concerning language, we sent our draft for profeccional editing, see attached certificate

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This review presented the main characteristics and mechanisms of operation of superconductor–insulator–normal metal–insulator–superconductor (SINIS) microwave detectors. The impression of the paper is interesting. However certain points require some illumination in order to fit usual academic standards.

- In the introduction some parts are missing, (i) motivations of the study; (ii) highlight the contributions (show what is the originality of your work); (ii) organization of the paper

-The work proposed and methodology is not well explained. How collect the papers and make an analysis

- As a review article, the study should support with more recent references on the same topic.

Author Response

Dear referee, thank you very much for careful reading of our manuscript. Concerning your comments see attached file and also a revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the authors reported the main characteristics and mechanisms of operation of SINIS microwave detectors. They provided an analysis of the detectors’ performance against a quantum detector and a photon counter. Besides, they discussed the various methods for the role of electron cooling in optimizing the current response to terahertz radiation and cooling a superconductor using normal metal traps. This work can be published with a minor revision.

 

1. In the introduction, the authors shall provide a comprehensive discuss of the history and mechanism of SINIS microwave detectors. They shall help authors better understand the related information.

 

2. Figure 1, “the schemes follow the same formatting”, does not add too much technical merit to this work, and can be removed or consolidated into other figures.

 

3. For each important article that was reviewed, the authors shall include a table to summarize the important results from each article.

4. Figure 12. Experimental setup with dilution cryostat insert: (a) Compact dilution cryostat insert—photo of insert (left): this figure shall be removed.

5. What is the scale bar in Figure 11. SEM images of SINIS detectors with a suspended Hafnium absorber before (left)?

Author Response

Dear referee, thank you very much for careful reading of our manuscript. Concerning your comments please find attached file and also the revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was revised following the suggestions and is clear and complete in the present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have answered my comments

Back to TopTop