Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the paper “A Review of Multifunctional Antennas Design for Internet of Things” is misleading. Please revise to depict the antenna designs you have presented and focus on multi-polarized antennas.

Although the authors state in Abstract and Introduction that “This review focuses on four primary operational fields: smart houses, smart cities, vehicle communications and last but not least, biomedical and implantable devices.”, they have not examined antennas for vehicle communications.

When discussing the smart cities antennas, the authors in section 2.3.1 focus in Base Station arrays. In the following they present antenna designs that are not appropriate for base stations. Moreover, they have not discussed the frequency band of interest for IoT applications. They provide some “typical” requirements for the HPBW for some sub-6GHz bands, and they present some research works with antenna designs in these bands. Then they discuss designs at 5.42 to 7.87 GHz and at 22-30 GHz bands. A clear focus should be provided by the authors. 

Moreover, the reviewer would expect a paragraph with requirements and target values for several antenna performance metrics. This paragraph should cover devices and base stations. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

My proposal is to narrow down the applications and focus in antennas for IoT biomedical and implantable devices as well as smart houses.

Typical radiation patterns should be provided for the examined antennas. Indeed, since for the smart home case the authors state that they present omni-directional or nearly isotropic behavior antennas they should give examples.

The smart home antennas section focuses on multi-polarized antenna structures. This should be emphasized also in the Intro section.

Minor Issues

1)        Pg.5 ln.212-214 Figure ?? should be Figure 2

2)        Pg.9 ln. 340 “A RF signal is transmitted through an Software…” should be “An RF signal is transmitted through a Software”.

Author Response

Reply:

Thank you for your careful review and the suggestions.

Following your guidelines, as well as those of the 2nd Reviewer we have included more material, especially regarding future perspectives and research challenges, while we have changed-improved the figures. In view of that we believe that the original title is sufficiently supported.

Please, find our detailed and full reply in the attached word file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my gratitude to the authors for submitting this comprehensive review on the design of multifunctional antennas for the Internet of Things. After a thorough reading of the entire manuscript, I believe it is a rich and well-structured overview. The authors have evidently conducted extensive literature research and in-depth reading. The content of the article is extensive, covering various aspects of IoT antenna design from multiple perspectives, and the writing format adheres to academic standards.

However, upon in-depth analysis of the paper, I have also identified that it requires improvement. Here are some specific suggestions and opinions:

(1) Lack of In-Depth Analysis: Although the article lists and summarizes a variety of antenna designs, it seems to lack an in-depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these designs. The purpose of a review is not only to summarize existing knowledge but more importantly to provide critical thinking. It would better to delve deeper into the discussion of each antenna design, including their performance indicators, applicable scenarios, limitations, and possible directions for improvement.

(2) Research Gaps and Future Directions: An excellent review should not just be a summary but should also inspire further research. It should point out the gaps in existing research and provide guidance for future studies. The current manuscript is somewhat lacking in this regard. It should include a discussion on the research gaps in the conclusion section and propose specific future research directions or hypotheses based on these gaps.

(3) Interdisciplinary Perspective: The Internet of Things is an interdisciplinary field, involving electronic engineering, computer science, materials science, and more. I suggest that the authors examine antenna design from an interdisciplinary perspective, exploring how different fields can promote and influence each other.

(4) Charts and Visualization: Although the article includes some charts and graphics, there is room to enhance visual elements, not just by referencing images from the original papers, to help readers better understand complex concepts and data.

(5) Strengthening the Conclusion: The conclusion should not only summarize the article but also emphasize the importance and urgency of the research, as well as its potential impact on the industry.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reply

Thank you for the positive evaluation of our methodology and your constructive comments. We appreciate your positive comments about our work. Besides that we are truly grateful to read and include into the manuscript your insightful suggestions regarding future perspectives, interdisciplinary character and research challenges.

Please, find our detailed and full reply in the attached word file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately responded to my comments/suggestions. No extra issues identified.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately responded to my comments/suggestions. No extra issues identified.

Reply:

Thank you for your careful review and the constructive suggestions.