Next Article in Journal
1D Modeling Considering Noise and Vibration of Vehicle Window Brushed DC Motor
Next Article in Special Issue
Conductive Ink Printed Fabric Antenna with Aperture Feeding Technique
Previous Article in Journal
Water Quality Modelling, Monitoring, and Mitigation
Previous Article in Special Issue
A VHF Band Small CRLH Antenna Using Double-Sided Meander Lines
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effects of Closed-Loop Devices on Omnidirectional Beam Patterns Radiated from WAVE Monopole Antennas

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11402; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211402
by Hong-Chan Kim 1,*, Sang-Jin Oh 2 and Chul-Soon Park 1
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11402; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211402
Submission received: 10 October 2022 / Revised: 6 November 2022 / Accepted: 7 November 2022 / Published: 10 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Electromagnetic Antennas for HF, VHF, and UHF Band Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is on "Effects of Independent Closed Loop Devices on Omnidirectional Beam Patterns Radiated from WAVE Monopole Antennas".  

Authors have presented their work by analyzing the effects of independent closed loop devices from WAVE monopole antennas.

1. Novelty of presented work is trivial. Significance of the work presented for WAVE applications can be explained more and authors are suggested to include novelty and significance of their work.

2. Why Omnidirectional beam patterns are only considered for investigation?

3. Only two parameters are examined: Current density/Magnetic field and gain radiation patterns. What about remaining performance parameters of monopole antenna? Are they independent of closed loop devices effects? Why their analysis is not illustrated in manuscript?

4. Gain improvement is also very low. Is that gain value sufficient for WAVE applications?

5. Abstract and conclusion can be more precise and specific. Give the comparison of simulation and experimental results.

6. Include state-of-art literature comparison with relevant works.

7. More relevant references can be included in manuscript.

8. English grammar and quality is to be improved.

9. Include complete simulation scenario of HFSS in manuscript.

 

Author Response

Answers to the reviewer’s comments and suggestions

(Manuscript Reference Number:  applsci-1990189)

 

We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions.  According to the editor and reviewers’s suggestions, we have revised our manuscript.  The detailed changes we have made are as follows.  Corrected parts are marked to red in the revised manuscript with tracking change function.

The item numbers corresponds to referees comments

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled “Effects of Independent Closed Loop Devices on Omnidirectional Beam Patterns Radiated from WAVE Monopole Antennas” has certain new insights and analyses with simulation results. The paper investigates the influence of independent closed-loop devices on omnidirectional beam patterns radiated from a WAVE monopole antenna for facilitating communication stability in Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Everything technology. The paper is interesting and well-written. I recommend accepting the manuscript with minor revisions.

1-  Could you explain the novelty of this research work?

2- Could you give the simulated and measured reflection coefficients obtained from monopole WAVE antenna only and monopole WAVE antenna with quadruple closed-loop devices?

3- The simulated and measured results for the whole system (Fig. 1 (c) and (d)) are missing, and it is advised to add and discuss the results.

Author Response

Answers to the reviewer’s comments and suggestions

(Manuscript Reference Number:  applsci-1990189)

 

We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions.  According to the editor and reviewers’s suggestions, we have revised our manuscript.  The detailed changes we have made are as follows.  Corrected parts are marked to red in the revised manuscript with tracking change function.

The item numbers corresponds to referees comments.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors are suggested to check spelling mistakes. Quality of work can be improved further.

Author Response

We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions.  According to the editor and reviewers’s suggestions, we have revised our manuscript.  The detailed changes we have made are as follows.  Corrected parts are marked to red in the revised manuscript with tracking change function.

The item numbers corresponds to referees comments.

 

Reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer 1 (Comments to the Author):

  1. Authors are suggested to check spelling mistakes. Quality of work can be improved further.

 

  1. We have made relevant corrections to improve grammar, spelling, and overall quality.

The references were modified according to the proposed content.

Please see the attachment.

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop