High-Performance Microwave Photonic Transmission Enabled by an Adapter for Fundamental Mode in MMFs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In response to the document you wrote, I would like to point out the following suggestions and comments:

1.      The abstract part is the part that needs to reflect your research value. The abstract should be updated. It should include the novelty about the work. This part of the content is too thin, and the content is not coherent. In addition, it is better to add some advantages of your work in this section.  

2.      In the introduction part, the first paragraph should briefly introduce the theory without piling it up. In your manuscript, the first sentences of this paragraph are the copy of the first sentences of the abstract.

3.      There is a logical confusion in the introduction part, especially for the last several paragraphs. The author should point out the drawback of the previous researches at first, and then propose your original research.

4.      The summary and discussion should be added to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of your work.

5.      It is recommended that more references should be discussed in the introduction section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Comments

Manuscript Title: High-performance Microwave Photonic Transmission Enabled by an Adapter for Fundamental Mode in MMFs

Manuscript Number: applsci-2143693

The manuscript under review is devoted to studying the performance of microwave photonic Transmission enabled by an adapter for fundamental mode in MMFs. Authors proposed to use of a microwave photonic link (MPL) has long been considered a superior way for radio frequency (RF) transmission due to its lightweight, high bandwidth, low cost, and large spurious-free dynamic range (SFDR). The results of this research show high-performance microwave photonic transmission enabled by mode-field adapters, which were realized by reverse tapering, to excite only the fundamental mode in MMFs.

The manuscript contains new and significant. The abstract clearly and accurately describes the content of the article. The literature review part contains distinct. The paper is nicely written and can get accepted but first, it should be improved. I have these comments:

1- Authors define the majority of abbreviations through paragraphs, but some abbreviations are still not defined for example MMFs in line 17 and SBS in line 17. Please verify all abbreviations.

2- It will be better if the authors describe their choice for some parameter in the experimental part, like the distance 17.6 km MMF; why not another value?

3- Why did you choose to modulate the 1550-nm laser by the two tones 1.897 GHz and 2 GHz? why not other frequencies?

4- It will be better if the authors describe before figure 1, the role of this equipment: RF Att: RF attenuator; MOD: intensity modulator; EDFA: erbium-doped fiber amplifier; VOA: variable optical attenuator; MFA: mode field adapter; PD: photodetector; ESA: electric spectrum analyzer.

5- The authors should add some other rich references.

Finally, I recommend the paper for publication after resolving the minor comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer Comments (Applied Science, MDPI)

This review article addresses the, High-performance Microwave Photonic Transmission Enabled 2 by an Adapter for Fundamental Mode in MMFs. The proposed scheme show a new method to improve the performance of microwave photonics links.

Here are some comments:

1. The reference number is very less.

2. The literature survey of the proposed scheme is not sufficient.

3. Figure 1, caption represents the details of the figure explanation. It should be explain in the figure 1, section in more details.

4. Author should distinguish between the prior studies and the proposed study.

5. The length of introduction is less.

6. In the introduction section, last paragraph author should categorized the section in details.

7. Explanation for proposed methodology is not sufficient for the general reader.

8. Figure 1, 3, 4caption is too lengthy. Instead of put details in the caption it suggested to put the explanation in the figure explanation section.

9. Figure 4 (b), presents that SFDR= 84 dB*Hz 2/3 = How author get this?

10. Figure 4 (a) and (c) why author only show the result w/adapter? Add the result w/o adapter for the better understating. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A