Analysis of the Image Magnification Produced by Inline Holographic Systems Based on the Double-Sideband Filter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a theoretical and experimental study of improving the quality of holographic images from in-line experimental configurations by using a DSB filter.

The science behind this paper seems straightforward and sound. But the way it is presented in the paper is not good. There are several issues that need to be addressed:

1) In the Header of the paper it is written journal "Crystals", but the paper was submitted to Applied Sciences. This does not look good. Either the authors used the wrong template or they made a resubmission, without correcting the name of the journal.

2) The Abstract is too long, about twice the lenght normal for scientific articles. Please rewrite the abstract, following the guidelines of the journal. In general, abstracts should be concise, highlighting just the major findings of the study.

3) The Experimental section is quite long and with sometimes unnecessary data. I suggest to put some of the less important results and graphs into the Supplementary section. Leave in the main text just the most important data. The main text should be written in a more clear and concise way.

4) The References:

- More recently published papers should be added, now there are mainly old papers cited. Is there no new research in this area?

- Several cited references have the author list shortened to "et al.". This is not the journal's referencing style, as far as I know. It is also not clear if the authors are doing self-citations or not. Please always write out the whole authors list.

I strongly suggest the authors to address the above mentioned issues. After this is done, and the manuscript is re-evaluated, I would recommend its publication in Applied Sciences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be improved and the typos corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do thank the Authors for revision accountance.

As far as I am concerned, I consider the submitted manuscript clear for publication in Appl. Sci.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript in notably improved compared to the original submission. The authors addressed all the issues that were pointed out in the review. The text is now easier to follow, the abstract is more concise, and the references were accordingly updated. Therefore, I would suggest to publish this revised manuscript in Applied Sciences.