Optimal Design and Mean Stress Estimation of Modular Metamaterials Inspired by Burr Puzzles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The entire text of the manuscript should be reviewed for spelling, grammar, and writing.
2. Abbreviations should be written in full in the manuscript, separately in the abstract and the text for the first time.
3. Reviewing previous works and reviewing related articles is very weak. The introduction section should be fundamentally changed and improved. It is required that several valid fully explained. Their advantages and disadvantages should be identified and all methods of implementing metamaterial structures should be presented in the form of a category. Then, clearly, the idea of this work should be presented. Providing justifications is mandatory. You can also use the following references:
- DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-27678-1
- DOI: 10.1049/mia2.12055
- DOI: 10.3390/ma16093473
- DOI: 10.1109/TAP.2023.3242118
- DOI: 10.1109/TCPMT.2020.3042963
4. For the relationships and formulas that are referenced, it is mandatory to refer only to the basic and primary references, and the presentation of multiple references for a formula should be omitted.
5. Differentiate vectors and scalars in all formulas. You can display the vectors in bold form.
6. Some formulas are better to be given in the text. For example, relations 14, 17, and 18.
7. Each of the Relative Permittivity, Relative Permeability, and Reflection Index characteristics should be added to the manuscript for all working frequencies.
8. The results of this work should be compared with several valid and new articles. It is recommended to prepare a table for dimensions, frequencies, insertion-loss and return-loss, complexity characteristics, etc.
9. It is necessary to explain the numerical methods performed in more detail. Also, the results of numerical analysis (in software such as MATLAB and Python) should be compared with the results of full-wave analysis (such as HFSS and CST software). Check the differences and present the error and sensitivity.
10. The conclusion section should be fundamentally changed. It is common for this section to consist of only one paragraph. In this paragraph, the idea, results, applications, and benefits of the work are discussed. Transfer the other items that you have presented in this section to other related sections. You can transfer many of them to the same sections that are covered.
The entire text of the manuscript should be reviewed for spelling, grammar, and writing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you greatly for the instructive and proper comments/suggestions, which have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the attachment file, we summarize all your comments, our responses to these comments and our associated revisions to the manuscript. The main revisions are marked using yellow background in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you greatly for the instructive and proper comments/suggestions, which have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the attachment file, we summarize all your comments, our responses to these comments and our associated revisions to the manuscript. The main revisions are marked using yellow background in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Optimal design and mean stress estimation of modular met- 2 amaterials inspired by burr puzzles
After reviewing the paper the following modifications are required before go to the further stages
1. Explain clearly what is the novelty of the concept compared to the recently published works
2. Add 2 to 3 papers related to this work recently published
3. Explanation is need for expressions in the research paper
4. Check grammar and spelling mistakes
Need to improve
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you greatly for the instructive and proper comments/suggestions, which have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the attachment file, we summarize all your comments, our responses to these comments and our associated revisions to the manuscript. The main revisions are marked using yellow background in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the authors utilize both experimental and theoretical (FEM) method to explore the optimal design and estimate the mean stress of modular metamaterials.
Experimental design is cleared stated properly. Details of simulation are described adequately.
This work succinctly described the content with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research. Furthermore, this work remedies some weakness of previous work about modular metamaterials.
In the end, I think this paper can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you greatly for the instructive and proper comments/suggestions, which have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the attachment file , we summarize all your comments, our responses to these comments and our associated revisions to the manuscript. The main revisions are marked using yellow background in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version of the manuscript has good quality.
It is recommended that the text of the manuscript be expertly reviewed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you greatly for approving this work. On this basis, we have further improved the quality of the manuscript based on the comments from other reviewers. Moreover, we have invited a native speaker to help us revise the language mistakes and improve the grammatical constructions. Furthermore, we have researched various references and carefully examined the manuscript to avoid all wrong or unprofessional expressions.
