Conceptual Design of a Semi-Dual Polarized Monopulse Antenna by Computer Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Conceptual Design of A Semi-Dual Polarized Monopulse Antenna by Computer Simulation
In the above mentioned article, authors have presented design concept of a semi dual polarized monopole antenna. The work has limited novelties and prospects from scientific point of view. The work is not of the standard to be published in Scientific journal like Applied sciences. It need many many modifications.
1. The abstract part is not well conceptualized and written
2. The introduction section does not shows sufficient information about the literature or state-of-art. Individually the cited references must be explained with their achievements and limitations.
3. What is the objective of the suggested antenna.
4. The figures are not drawn with professional software.
5. Detail discussion required on how the proposed design is suitable for radar target tracking antennas or for antennas for tracking, transmitting, and receiving communication or telemetry signals from moving platforms.
6. NO FABRICATION MODEL IS SHOWN AND THE MEASURED RESULTS ARE NOT SHOWN. As the working band is within 20 GHz. So, the authors must need to fabricate the prototype model and must need show the measured results.
7. The antenna design must be discussed with more detail with analytical expressions.
8. In figure 3, S31 results are not given but indicated why??
9. The presentations in the figure must be of proper presentation
10. All the results are shown and claimed with simulation studies, so i recommend to verify the results obtained from CST with HFSS and FEKO.
11. Figure 6 is incomplete, the value of S11 not shown properly.
12. Figure 13 is incomplete, the value of S11 not shown properly.
13. Conclusion section is too lengthy.
14. structural parametric analysis required.
15. performance comparison in table format is required with state-of-the-art.
Author Response
Please find the attached response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work presents a design of a monopulse reflector antenna with dual-circularly polarized sum patterns and linearly-polarized azimuth and elevation difference patterns. Since this work only reports the simulation results, I don’t find much need to be improved. The following issues need to be addressed.
1. Why do you choose 14.5-16.0 GHz at the Ku-band. What is the currently used band for radar target tracking and communication signal tracking?
2. The axial ranges of figures 6,7,9,13 and 18 can be optimized to present the data range more clearly.
Author Response
Please find the attached response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. It would be good if authors provide measurement results too.
2. Include design evolution (step-by-step design).
3. Show 3D pattern with and without a reflector.
4. In Fig 4(a) and (b), there are 4 legends but only three graphs. It is due to the overlapping of the transmission coefficient. Either remove one legend or equate both in a single legend.
5. How authors claim circular polarization. There is no graphical evidence. Include the same.
6. Include measured results of Scattering parameters and radiation performances (Gain, Directivity, & Efficiency)
Author Response
Please find the attached response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is well described with better clarity and flow. However, a few comments need to be addressed as follows:
1. How are the dimensions of the waveguide decided?
2. What is the significance of Figure 8.
3. How did you obtain the graph shown in Figure 9 in CST software?
4. Also show AR vs frequency curves for the desired band of operation.
5. Conclusion is too lengthy, kindly reduce it to one para.
6. Fabricated prototype and measurement results missing in the manuscript?
7. Kindly show an integrated Monopulse antenna (Waveguide and Reflector).
8. How an impedance matching could be achieved between the waveguide and reflector?
Author Response
Please find the attached response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The measurement and fabrication is mandatory to be included in the paper. Also, the other comments answers are not satisfactory to me.
Author Response
We understand the reviewer's opinion on the fabrication and measurement though we don't agree. Let us quote two counter examples:
- https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/2/638
- https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/11/18/2848
Regarding other comments, we thick our manuscript deserve publication just for novelty of the idea.
Reviewer 4 Report
suitable to accept in its current form
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer's comments which helped improve our manuscript.
