Advanced Numerical Methods for Graphene Simulation with Equivalent Boundary Conditions: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have reviewed several equivalent boundary conditions for graphene simulations and its review part is comprehensive. The basic advantage is that the graphene is modelled as a thin slab while in the proposed methods as a zero-thickness boundary condition, a significant reduction is achieved. This work is interesting and meaningful for the computational photonic society. Therefore, the manuscript is suitable for the subject of ‘computational photonics’. In addition, some issues are provided for the authors’ revisions of the manuscript.
1. There are many mistakes in the manuscript, some of them, not all, are listed as follows,
P2. ‘direct discretization of graphene thin plates result in’ should be ‘direct discretization of graphene thin plates results in’ .
P2. ’ and equivalent boundary conditions such as ITBC, SCBC and IMBC are introduced’ should be ‘and equivalent boundary conditions such as ITBC, SCBC, IMBC and SIBC are introduced ’ .
P12. ‘The mass matrix block’s inversion and storage ’ should be ‘ The inversion and storage of the mass matrix block’
The authors need to correct all the typos and double-check the manuscript.
Author Response
By taking the reviewer’s suggestion, the typos have been corrected and the whole revised manuscript has been double-checked.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Advanced Numerical Methods for Graphene Simulation With Equivalent Boundary Conditions: A Review” reports an interesting review of essential numeric methods used to simulate Graphene.
From my point of view, the manuscript deserves to be published in Photonics. This study is a good review in which anyone who wants to learn the basics of electromagnetic field interactions with Graphene could use it. I don’t find issues to solve, so I recommend publishing it after minor corrections. I only make some suggestions to enrich the manuscript.
1. In the abstract, could you enumerate the advanced numerical methods studied in the manuscript?
2. Is there any experimental results to compare with the numerical ones?
Author Response
We have responded to your comments and suggestions, please review the document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this review paper the authors summarize numerical simulation methods for graphene described within the Kubo surface conductivity model. Typically, a graphene sheet is described with the Kubo formula containing the intra- and inter-band transition contributions in graphene. However, the formula as cited in the paper does not contain any nonlocal term and therefore can only describe optical absorption with no nonlocal effect. This limitation is not discussed in the paper. Instead, the various implementation of the Kubo formula using popular software packages is focused. I think this paper would gain more attention in the field of electromagnetic computation than in photonics. Therefore, I suggest it be transferred to a journal on electromagnetic computation or other related areas.
More editing would be needed throughout the text.
Author Response
We have responded to your comments and suggestions, please review the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I agree with the authors that this computational topic would be interesting to the reader of Photonics. The authors have revised the manuscript according to my previous comments. I am satisfied with its current form except for its language. It can be published under the editors discretion. No scientific review would be needed from me.
As a minor suggestion: a list of acronyms and a detailed definition for every symbol would be helpful for a potential reader.
No further review would be needed from me.
See above.
Author Response
We appreciate that the reviewer satisfies with our latest response. By taking the reviewer’s suggestion, a list of acronyms is added. Please refer to the revised manuscript (p1, List of Abbreviations, line 1-10).
