Direct Method for Reconstructing the Radiating Part of a Planar Source from Its Far-Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The contribution of this work is good. The title has been well formulated and it conveys the focus of the study. Research aims and objectives are well delineated in this contribution.

 

The authors have a high level of understanding of current research. The contribution is clearly written and the narrative is logical.

 

The authors used the appropriate techniques for analysis of the research objects in order to meet aims of the study. The accurate interpretation of outcomes, well substantiated by the results of the analysis has been achieved by them. The presentation of the results in terms of the research objectives has been successfully made. Appropriate methods have been used in a well-founded manner. 

 

The results are interesting, nevertheless the case with the presence of noise in the measurements must be considered more in depth.

 

 

 

 

Equation (12) can present sinularities? Please discuss!

 

 

 

Concerning the literature you can consider the following papers related to a similar problem of identification of oscillations to improve the tutorial/Survey character of the paper in the context of noise measurements. This paper can give some inspiration for the case of noise measurements.

 

An on-line orthogonal wavelet denoising algorithm for high-resolution surface scans

M Schimmack, P Mercorelli Journal of the Franklin Institute 355 (18), 9245-9270, 2018.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents study of the direct method to reconstruct the radiating part of a planar source from its far fields based on their exact relationship.  Below I attached some questions, editorial mistakes etc., to which the Authors should to assume an attitude:

1. Used references have to be analyzed more in depth in instruction section.

2. In the introduction section authors should in clearly way presents the novelty of the paper eg. using bullet points.

3. Conclusions according with the performed studies provided by the authors should be presented in clearly way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting and introduces new knowledge through the proposed simple method of determining the radiation source of a linear source or a planar source on a rectangular sheet. I have two remarks that the authors should address in the manuscript:

1. Increase the number and area of alizated literature attached to the manuscript

 

2. Manusktpt should be extended with simulation or practical experience using the proposed solution. Undoubtedly, it would strengthen the practical aspect of using the solution.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors proposed a direct method of reconstructing the radiating part of a planar source from its far fields based on their exact relationship. They also demonstrate that it is possible to reconstruct the source by sampling the far-fields on a plane or along a linear path. This reviewer has the following observations on the submitted manuscript:

·  The article is well-organized and well-written. However, it is not clear to the reviewer how does the article fit into the scope of the ‘electronics’ journal? From the second page and onwards, it seems the paper was prepared for another journal, remote sensing, not for electronics.

·  The article suffers from grammatical mistakes and typos and requires extensive English editing.

· The article is very short. Therefore, it is highly recommended that the authors explore their proposed approach's efficacy in at least two more different examples.

·  In order to claim the efficacy of any technique, it is necessary to provide statistical analysis by presenting numbers for a few well know performance metrics. Besides, the results should also be compared with other methods reported in the literature (highly recommended). For instance, the computational time and other performance metrics.

·  The authors should present the assumptions and limitations of their study and guide the readers toward the future extensions.

 

Overall, the article can be considered after major revisions if the authors address the raised concerns satisfactorily and the editor finds it within the scope of the journal. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

The manuscript has been significantly revised.

I propose to continue the topic and present the practical application of the conducted research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper entitled “Direct Method for Reconstructing the Radiating Part of a Planar Source from its Far-Fields”. 

We will continue this research and will present the practical application in future.

Reviewer 4 Report

yes, the article can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper entitled “Direct Method for Reconstructing the Radiating Part of a Planar Source from its Far-Fields”. We appreciate the comments and suggestions sincerely. Here, thank you again for your patience and carefully reviewing this manuscript.