Wideband Ring-Monopole Flexible Antenna with Stub for WLAN/C-Band/X-Band Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, a flexible antenna is designed and implemented, which can be operated in wide bandwidth. The structure design is interesting. However, it is lack of theoretical analysis in the manuscript. Authors should supplement the analysis on the designed structure, including its equivalent RLC circuit, the influences of key structural parameters, etc.. The following issues should be addressed:
1. Many grammar mistakes and typos in the manuscript. English should be improved carefully. For example, line 32-34: "However, since there are many wearable devices that interwork with other devices using frequency bands such as WIFI and Bluetooth included in the WLAN band so that research on a broadband flexible antenna including the WLAN band is required." I need to read several times to try to get the meaning. Here this sentence is used as an example. Many problems should be addressed, because they are too many to be listed.
2.Analysis should be addressed on the structure shown in Fig.1, including its equivalent circuit. Detailed electromagnetic analysis should be derived. Its current version is too simple in terms of the analysis.
3.The iteration steps, as shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3, should be narrated more clearly. What's the inner logic progress in the mentioned 5 steps?
4.For the comparison results between experiment and simulation in Fig.7 and Fig.8, analysis should be conducted on the inconsistent problem. It is not correct to say "The comparison between measured data and simulation shows a good agreement."(Line 148 to 149)
5. Obvious error in Line 173 "Figure 8 shows the peak gain of the antenna for each frequency". Should be Figure 9.
6. It seems the authors use the tense randomly. It should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper designs a wideband ring-shaped flexible monopole antenna operating in WLAN/C-band/X-Band and analyze the antenna bending characteristics. The critical aspects, from my point of view, are the following ones:
Problem 1: More interpretations about the design principles of the proposed antenna should be added.
Problem 2: The structure organization of the manuscript is so obscure and difficult to understand. More interpretations should be added.
Problem 3: What are the disadvantages of the designed flexible antenna?
Problem 4: There are so many typos and mistakes. For example,
line 40, "practical use. [14-16]." -> "practical use [14-16].";
line 83, "1.5mm" -> "1.5 mm";
line 88, "32×40mm2" -> "32×40 mm2";
line 173, "Figure 8 shows the peak gain"-> "Figure 9 shows the peak gain";
The full text should be carefully reviewed and revised before resubmission.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Author may compare their proposed method with other related referenced papers including parameter like size, performance, application, ease in installation, accuracy, robustness etc.?
2. Author must also specify which measurement tool they have used for this design? They may also indicate facilities where they completed fabrication and measurement work?
3. Author may also show the result of efficiency, Surface current distribution,3D radiation pattern, VSWR, polarization etc. for the entire working band?
4. Gain of the antenna prototype is not constant on entire working band; author may also explain the reason and its effect on WLAN/C band / X- band applications.
Also how is the proposed work different from [a].
[a] “Circular SRR shaped UWB Antenna with WiMAX Band Notch Characteristics”, IEEE Radio and Antenna Days of the Indian Ocean (IEEE RADIO 2018), Mauritius, October 15-19, 2018
In [a] also, a circular monopole antenna with notch characteristics similar to the proposed design is explained. The authors should compare their work with [a].
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am happy to see my concerns are addressed and would like to recommend for acceptance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We'd like to thank you for your helpful comments.
We also checked English language and style again.
Best regards,
Yong Bae Park
Reviewer 2 Report
The logical organization of the manuscript is still so obscure and it is difficult to understand. The author should divide Sections 2 and 3 into some subsections to make the content clear and easy to understand.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
