Influence of Dielectric Plate Parameters on the Reflection Coefficient of a Planar Aperture Antenna
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the first Chapter of this paper (rows 67-69) you mentioned the fact that this article represents a continuation of the research presented in References [9-11]. Thus, please rephrase the article and clearly mention the conclusions from References [9-11] and starting from these clearly state what the new article brings to the previous study.
The information presented in Chapter 2 and 3 are very similar, most of them identical with the ones presented in Reference [11].
Please complete the article with an image of the implemented model in the ANSYS program. Also, please insert a picture with the physical model from a different angle. In Figure 14 from the present article the antenna presented is the same one as the one from Reference [11]? Only the radome dielectric dimensions differ?
You mentioned the fact that ‘’ References [9-11] analyze the influence of two parameters (thickness and permittivity) of the dielectric on the reflection coefficient’’. Why did you resume (with other values) these analyses in the present article?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have to justify in the manuscript why they consider values of permeability higher than one. What should be the practical relevance since magnetic materials are usually metals that will induce reflection.
Also is the material used for the radome really paper ? How can paper be used for achieving a thickness of 11.7 mm ?
And how is the permittivity of paper determined/measured ?
Please address all these points in a revised version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The traditional issue is considered in this manuscript. The quality of presentation in not good and it is needed to edit, especially, abstract and conclusion section should be short and comprehensive. The major comments are listed below:
1) The necessity of such a research has not been stated, please explain clearly.
2) It is obvious that the conductiveity should be zero and non-magnetic material is suitable for a perfect dielectric used as a radome. So, the authors have analayzed a obvious issue within this manuscript, and reported insignificant results.
3) on the hand, loss tangent for dielctric must be zero once its conductivity is zero. however, the authors have examined both od them in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
4) The incident waves from circular waveguide, which is shown in Fig. 3, and Fig. 4(a), have been assumed uniform plane-waves. Is it true?
I think that the authors remove the analysis reported in section 3.
By the way, the fabricated and measured structure is not clear. when an antenna is examined in terms of radome properties, its radiation patterns must be reported and the effects of radome should be investigated on gain or radition patterns.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
see the attatched file
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have corrected the manuscript according to my comments and suggestions. The paper can be accepted to be published in this version. Wish you all the beat!
Reviewer 3 Report
The requested comments have been addressed within the final version of paper and it is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We appreciate your professional comments and suggestions since they are all valuable and useful for raising the quality of our manuscript. All authors carefully studied your comments and we have made the corrections which we hope will meet your approval (Round 1 of reviewing).
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
