Next Article in Journal
Design and Fabrication of an Isolated Two-Stage AC–DC Power Supply with a 99.50% PF and ZVS for High-Power Density Industrial Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Secure and Anonymous Voting D-App with IoT Embedded Device Using Blockchain Technology
Previous Article in Special Issue
A 125 KHz, Single-Stage, Dual-Output Wireless Power Receiver with PSM Modulation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A 3.7-to-10 GHz Low Phase Noise Wideband LC-VCO Array in 55-nm CMOS Technology

Electronics 2022, 11(12), 1897; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11121897
by Yan Yao, Zhiqun Li *, Zhennan Li, Bofan Chen and Xiaowei Wang
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Electronics 2022, 11(12), 1897; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11121897
Submission received: 30 May 2022 / Revised: 12 June 2022 / Accepted: 15 June 2022 / Published: 16 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modeling and Design of Integrated CMOS Circuit)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a 3.7GHz ~ 10GHz LC-VCO array design with a wide frequency range using 4 VCOs.

The content and explanation of the paper are well done, but the originality that the paper is trying to claim is low. I think it would be better if you write a little more about what you want to claim.

1. Does the current indicated in the paper include the buffer current?

2. We recommend that you include measurement bench content for your measurements.

3. In Figure 5, it would be better to display the VCO's load inductor and 2nd harmonic inductor separately. Are vco3 and vco4 well marked?

4. It would be nice to have a picture showing the entire frequency tuning range at once.

5. Is there a reason why VCO1 has the smallest frequency range?

6. The buffer has a wide operating frequency range, so please add more about this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1)The background part should be riched with more information around the studied topic. What has been studied and what type of question is still unresolved.

2) For the Resutls part, the authros just list the data without any discussion or explaination, which is not good. Please provide some in-deep discussion around the measured data. 

3) Conclusions part should also be revised with the real conclusion information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been well revised and edited.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the response

Back to TopTop