A Broadband Gain Amplifier Designed with the Models for Package and Diode Using 0.5 μm GaAs E-pHEMT Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provide the design of a power amplifier with ESD protection using a 0.5 μm GaAs E-pHEMT Process.
Comments and suggestions:
- Line 37: the sentence should be corrected, there might be some word missing;
- line 39: In previous paper [6] - is reference [6] your work? If not, it would be better to cite it as "Paper [X] states, that it is...". If it's your previous work, then it the correct way for the reader to understand that is "in our previous work [X]";
- line 48: "was used for RF" -> "were used for RF"
- line 78: "The table 1" the is not required
- What is the source for Table 1 data? Were parasitic parameters simulated or obtained from a manufacturer?
- Figure 2 name should be updated with that it's package model simulation, otherwise it is not clear what DUT do these S-parameters correspond to; What is the difference between S21, S31 and S41 in fig 2 a? what are the ports? Ar they the ones in Fig. 1? If so, you should elaborate on the description of Fig. 2 to make it clear.
- Line 91 - s-parameters should have a upper-case S
- How come the capacitance in Lines 125-126 and Table 2 for a larger output diode (200um x 16) is smaller than that of a smaller input diode (150um x 4)?
- Line 129 and Line 136 - tabulation is wrong, bad formatting.
- Do the other reference works in table 4 have ESD protection? The point of this article as I understand it is that nobody includes ESD in technologies, other than CMOS, so the authors did. I found it hard to distinguish your work from other works in the field, other than specific technology used.
- Was the design fabricated? As far as I understand, all of the data is purely simulations.
Overall merit: I'd suggest rejecting this paper due to a lack of novelty and practical measurements of the designed PA.
Author Response
Please check the attachment file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript a broadband gain amplifier with flat gain is proposed. The manuscript provides ESD-Protected and well organized. But, some major corrections are needed as bellow:
1.Title should be modified, it seems confusing. For example, the word " Robustness" is used incorrectly. Also, the title is too long.
2.The comparison table (Table4) should be rewritten. There are some mistakes in the table as follows:
a)The ref [1] is not cited correctly in table 4. Ref [1] is a review paper, which in this paper no amplifier is designed.
b)Refs [3] and [4] are commercial IC datasheets, which should not be compared
in the comparison table.
- c) some state of the art amplifier should be added in the comparison table.
3.The literature review is poor and the utilized references are not sufficient, there are too many conference papers and IC data sheet in references parts. Some new related references should be added and explained in the introduction section.
4.Abbreviated words should be defined in the first occurrence. For example: ESD, CATV, and so on.
5.The schematic diagram of the single common-source and cascade amplifiers should be demonstrated and explained clearly before Fig.6.
6.Which software is used for simulation? Add the name and version of the applied software, and also explain the simulation conditions in the manuscript.
- Add the novelty and advantages of the proposed work clearly in the abstract section.
- Noise figure and related explanations about the noise should be added in the paper.
- The paper should be revised carefully. And typos and grammatical errors should be corrected, because there are several typos in the paper. For example, Darlington amplifier is written incorrectly as "Dalington" in several parts.
Author Response
Please check the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors presented a study about a broadband gain amplifier up to 5GHz. I think they study is solid and suitable for publication. Nevertheless I have few minor comments that could be useful to improve the quality of the paper before publication.:
- Please check Figure 2 (a). Frequency has units in dB!
- Authors discuss about diodes size used in the desing. These values are shown in Table 2. Nevertheless some units could be missed. For example, input diode has a size of 150 μm x 4. What does it mean the 4? is it lenght or maybe number of diodes? Please clarify it.
- I think that a brief text highlighting the main advantages about this device compared to previous works presented in Table 4 is neccessary to let the reader the novelty or benefit about the device proposed here.
Author Response
Please check the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No major improvements to the quality of the paper have been made. The main question "what is different and unique about your work?" or "what is the main point of your research?" have not been addressed.
I'd suggest rejecting the paper because of a lack of novelty.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file for a detailed explanation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have addressed all of the comments in the revised paper. However, some minor modifications are needed.
- At the end of Table 4 the asterisk (* Measured frequency at 2650MHz) is not clear. The asterisk sign is written for some parameters such as Frequency*, Power consumption*, Gain* and etc. in the table. If you mean "measured at 2650MHz frequency", the asterisk for Frequency should be removed. However, write it in a clearer way.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file for detailed explanation
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the answer.
