Gain and Phase Calibration of Uniform Rectangular Arrays Based on Convex Optimization and Neural Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is too short to clearly explain the work. Please adding more details.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract need to be improved, it should include the objective of the work, techniques (planar array, neural network,... are not sufficient to explain the techniques ) used to achieve, few remarkable results (mentioned SNR etc...) and application (Specific).
In section 1 (Introduction) the novelty of the proposed contribution is not sufficiently documented. Related work must be examined in comparison with this work. In addition, a paragraph at the end of the sections, which describes the remainder of the paper would have been helpful.
No real-time implementation things are discussed. Also, the experimental setup is not well described for the application.
The last section 5 (Conclusions) is very brief. More details should be provided about the results obtained. Perhaps a Conclusions section could be useful for emphasizing the outcomes and novel contributions of this research
Wrong citing (Eg: Figure captions say Figure 6 but in the body, it is cited as Fig. 6 line 74, 104, 116, 121, )
Figure 1 can be improved. Array structure etc .. are not visualized.
References need to be improved: No recent or top articles are cited. Extra references can be added! Numerous statements, equations .. required citation.
Extensive editing of English language and style required. I have difficulties in understanding the language you use. Proof reading is required.
In simulation results, the authors need to compare the proposed scheme with the traditional methods and other learning structures. Please summarized the main contributions one by one and then compared with the existing learning framework.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
accept
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
My previous comments
"In section 1 (Introduction) the novelty of the proposed contribution is not sufficiently documented. Related work must be examined in comparison with this work. In addition, a paragraph at the end of the sections, which describes the remainder of the paper would have been helpful."
Here, the remainder of the paper, section wise is not written at the end of the Introduction section. This is very important for any article.
"Extensive editing of English language and style required. I have difficulties in understanding the language you use. Proof reading is required"
I don't see that the current version of the article went through quality proof reading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
