Dielectric-Loaded Miniaturized Cavity Bandpass Filter with Improved Power Capacity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper a dielectric-loaded miniaturized cavity band pass filter is proposed. The proposed filter is designed, simulated and measured. The proper analysis is provided. This is good manuscript but there is some major comment, which listed as follows:
1-The Bandpasss Filter word in the Title (line 2) and abstract (line 9) and in the text (line 147, line 155 and line 157) has triple “s” should be modified as Bandpass Filter.
2- In, Fig.10 Photo of the fabricated device is not proper it should be modified with ruler or saleable device the applied coin totally cover the device.
3-In the text mentioned that AWR and HFSS and CST software are used. Why three software are used?
4- proposed cavity resonator is used to miniaturized the filter, How much size reduction has been achieved? Explain about size reduction.
5-The proposed BPF has narrow bandwidth about 6% FBW. Provide a comparison Table and compare FBW of the proposed filter with other BPFs.
6-In line 18, Introduction section should be provided as section “1” not “0”.
7-The quality of all figures should be improved.
8-Provide group delay curve for the proposed filter.
9- There are many editing errors in the text. For example, in line 97 there are too many space between “the” and “resonator”. In line 98 there is no space between “figure 6” and “Structure”.
10-In fig.9, the S-parameters results are shown only up to 2GHz and in line 105 mentioned that the stop band is limited to 2.7GHz. Provide S-parameters in the wider frequency range at least 3GHz.
11- In line 149 it is written that “Figure 10 is the photo.” What does it mean? Correct this sentence.
12-Which Network Analyzer was used for measurement. Provide the name and specification of the measurement device.
13-In this paper only two parameters of the BPF (return loss and insertion loss) are investigated. Provide other parameters of the filter like as FBW, group delay, normalized Size, Stopband bandwidth, sharpness of the responses, and compare the proposed filter with other work with these parameters. Maybe below paper is helpful: “ A compact microstrip low-pass filter with ultra wide stopband using compact microstrip resonant cells. International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies. 2017 Jun;9(5):1023-7.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abstract section doesn’t provide information about problem selected. Abstract section must be in standard form.
- Introduction section should start from section first not zero.
- Related work should be mentioned in a separate section
- Introduction section should have proper research flow
- Contributions should be highlighted in bullet points and justified
- A ‘Research Gap’ section should incorporate which will states the purpose of the study
- How the proposed filter is better than the existing filters. A detailed comparative analysis is required based on the different performance parameters.
- More simulation and hardware results are require with critical discussion to show the effectiveness of the proposed filter.
- Figure 11 is not clear. It must be presented in more clear form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript proposes a dielectric-loaded cavity bandpass filter with improved power capacity. The research work is valid but numerous changes and updates are required before the manuscript can be recommended for publication.
- The first word "The" in the Introduction (line 19) should be removed as I believe it to be a typographical error.
- In line 50, the authors are should stick to the rules in the MDPI template and change "formula (1)" to 'Equation (1)'.
- All equations from Equation (2) to Equation (12) need to be cited within the text before being listed. It is not appropriate to just say "... can be expressed as follows."
- Figures 5 and 8 are missing the vertical axes labels.
- Figure 11 needs to be plotted professionally using any software of choice (MatLab for example), as print screens of measured results are not appropriate in journal papers.
- I am not sure why the authors decided to present simulation and measurement results on two separate graphs. This is not a good and standard practice as it makes both results comparison impossible. This should be corrected. Measurement and simulation results should be super-imposed and presented in a single graph for easy comparison.
- One big claim in the manuscript is that the proposed filter device is of compact size and "... reduced by about 25% in the thickness direction...". Yet, the authors did not include a comparison table to justify this claim. They should include a performance comparison table and use it to compare their work to: (a) any two of the already cited papers published in the last five years; (b) the two conventional microstrip filter papers suggested below; (c) the two SIW filter papers suggested below.
- Suggested microstrip papers:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7394116
http://section.iaesonline.com/index.php/IJEEI/article/view/2466 - Suggested SIW filter papers
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9010001
https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742017v16i2793
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have answered most of my comments. But still There are some editing errors in the text, which should be modified before publishing.
1. In the text 41 references are cited and in Table 2 references [39], [40] and [41] are compared, but at the end of manuscript there are only 40 references are existing. The citation is not correct.
2. Ref “37” in line 322 is not correct and belong to the below reference. Therefore, only 39 references are existing.
3. According to my last comment in the previous revision round,
“13-In this paper only two parameters of the BPF (return loss and insertion loss) are investigated. Provide other parameters of the filter like as FBW, group delay, normalized Size, Stopband bandwidth, sharpness of the responses, and compare the proposed filter with other work with these parameters. Maybe below paper is helpful: “ A compact microstrip low-pass filter with ultra wide stopband using compact microstrip resonant cells. International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies. 2017 Jun;9(5):1023-7.”
Table 2 should be completed and at least two parameters from below parameters should be added in the table
bandwidth, FBW, group delay, sharpness of the responses, Stopband bandwidth and ….
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Though the authors have now actioned most of the comments in the initial review round, they have not included [34],[35],[36] and [38] in the comparison table as advised. This omission should be addressed before the manuscript is accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
