Miniaturized Antipodal Vivaldi Antenna with Improved Bandwidth Using Exponential Strip Arms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript ‘Miniaturized Antipodal Vivaldi Antenna with Improved Bandwidth Using Exponential Strip Arms’ develops a miniaturized broadband antenna through simulation and experiment. The low frequency bandwidth of the antenna is widened by introducing the exponential strip arms. It can be considered for publication in Electronics before solving the following problems.
Q:
- A drop in the antenna gain can be seen over 2.5-5 GHz is mentioned in the paper. Why? it is caused by the exponential strip arms? And whether the gain of corresponding frequency can be further optimized.
- Consider slightly lower definition pictures in the article.
- In the process of studying the parameter m2, when m2 = 10 mm, the gain of the antenna is reduced to 0 dBi near 4.2 GHz. The corresponding explanation should be added.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper should be rejected due to the following reasons.
1. The quality does not meet this journal high standard.
2. The contributions are not sufficient and novel enough.
3. The organization and writing style is poor.
4. Simulation results are not convincing and lack of comparison with existing work.
5. Reference part is very poor, like there are too many old and not much representative references.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents a miniaturized UWB antipodal tapered slot antenna. The writing is good. Measurement results agree with the simulation ones. My concern is on the new contribution of this work. UWB Vivaldi Antennas have been studied extensively. Also, utilizing more arms to enhance the bandwidth of a UWB antenna is a classical technology. Hence, the topic and the technology involved are not new. Besides, the improvement is very little. For example, in Figure 3, it seems the conventional one is of narrow band. But I believe the bandwidth can be enhanced if the conventional one is further optimized. From Figure 4, the proposed one is hardly advantageous in terms of gain.
Therefore, this submission is not supported.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors presented an interesting, well organized, and easy to read and follow paper. The presented idea is interesting (but the novelty is not very clear, from my view), and there are a clear methodology and a reasonable explanation of the method and the results.
The authors have presented the design of a strip Armrs based Antipodal Vivaldi Antenna with improved bandwidth. The miniaturization capability, in terms of lower edge cut-off frequency, is achieved by loading the exponential strip arms.
The simulated and measured results of the proposed antenna responses agree well with each other.
However, the following issue has to be addressed:
1- In line 60, ... constant and thickness of 2.55 of 1 mm should be ... constant and thickness of 2.55 and 1 mm.
2- it is clear that by increasing the electrical length (adding strip resonators), the antenna behaviors should be improved (changed) at lower frequencies. In addition the antenna cost and design complexity are increased by loading the prosed strips. I suggest for authors to add more details (explanations) about the miniaturization capability as well as the related cost/effect of integrating additional resonators (strip arms in this proposal case).
3- I suggest also to :
- Add the reflection coefficient of the strip arms; as an antenna (as proposed, but without the conventional Vivaldi antenna) to help readers understanding the behavior/effect of these particles.
- Compare the three design cases (conventional, strip arms and strip arms loaded Vivaldi antennas) in 0-17 GHz frequency range, with the aim to see and understand how the lower cut-off frequency is reduced. Figure 3
4- Why the proposed antenna gain has been improved by 1 dBi at 10GHz, compared to the conventional antenna? A comparison of radiation patterns is needed at this frequency (simulations are enough)
5- In Figure 2, the Jsurf(A/m) scale values should be displayed.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper should be rejected due to the following reasons.
1. The quality does not meet this journal high standard.
2. The contributions are not sufficient and novel enough.
3. The organization and writing style is poor.
4. Simulation results are not convincing and lack of comparison with recent representative work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for the revisions. Now the paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper has been improved
