Next Article in Journal
Accurate Reconstruction of the Radiation of Sparse Sources from a Small Set of Near-Field Measurements by Means of a Smooth-Weighted Norm for Cluster-Sparsity Problems
Previous Article in Journal
Real-Time Application of Computer Graphics Improvement Techniques Using Hyperspectral Textures in a Virtual Reality System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Electronics
Volume 10
Issue 22
10.3390/electronics10222853
Review Report
electronics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Design and Synthesis of Multi-Mode Bandpass Filter for Wireless Applications

Electronics 2021, 10(22), 2853; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10222853
by Satheeshkumar Palanisamy 1,*, Balakumaran Thangaraju 1, Osamah Ibrahim Khalaf 2, Youseef Alotaibi 3 and Saleh Alghamdi 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Electronics 2021, 10(22), 2853; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10222853
Submission received: 13 October 2021 / Revised: 11 November 2021 / Accepted: 16 November 2021 / Published: 19 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Microwave and Wireless Communications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this paper is overall technically sound and well organized.

However I suggest

  1. improve the quality of the figures , for example .figure.1, fugure.11,12,13, do not directly put the HFSS simulation results in a paper.
  2. The simulation and measurement results need to be compared in a same graph.
  3. The length of the paper is a littble bit too long, the filter is not as complex to use 17 pages to describe,  try to simplify it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented work is interesting, but the novelty is not clear. Some comments for the authors-

(a) The novelty of the work should be clearly indicated. The comparison in Table 2 is not compete. The proposed work should be compared with the most recent research studies to show the advancement and importance of the proposed research.

(b) Show simulated and measured results in the same plot.

(c) A photo of the fabricated porotype is highly recommended.

(d) Improve the quality of Figure 1.

(e) In Figure 2, caption and figure should be in the same page.

(f) Grid lines present in some figures, e.g., Figure 2, 4, 5, 6…., it is recommended to remove grid lines from the figures.

(g) Figure 13 is poor quality.

(h) Reference 16, 19, 22 and 23 are not appropriate. More appropriate references can be used.

(i) English writing of the manuscript needs improvements.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the quality of Fig,1 is still too low, please improve it .

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. Table 2 should be described more broadly. Especially, the comparison with Ref. [27] needs more explanation, it can be seen that the filter reported in Ref. [27] has less volume than the proposed design.
  2. Some figures are quite large, e.g., Fig. 6, appropriate figure size should be used in the paper.
  3. Still, the paper needs some English writing corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop