Advances in Microwave Large-Signal Metrology: From Vector-Receiver Load-Pull to Vector Signal Network Analyzer and Time-Domain Load-Pull Implementations (Invited Paper)
, Manuel Alejandro Pulido-Gaytan 1, Thaimí Niubó-Alemán 1,2 and Marlon Molina-Ceseña 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Work looks good and I would like to recommend this paper for publishing in Electronics Journal.
The main goal of this review is to present the work that did in CICESE’s RF & Microwave Research group.
1、The topic of the paper is not novel but is a good review of the power amplifier.
2、However, I would like the author to compare with recent work about class-J and class-F that was published.
3、Yes, the paper is easy to read, but the author can improve it by a native English.
4、The conclusion presented a summary of the work and the plan for the future, but I suggest to author improve the abstract and conclusion which can help the reader.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the time spent in the paper revision.
Comment No2. A new subsection was added to the document to include recent results about Class-J amplifier.
Comment No3. the paper was reviewed by the author and the writing was improved.
Comment No.4. The abstract and the conclusion were improved in order to better explain the content of the paper and the achievements of the CICESE's RF and Microwave group.
Reviewer 2 Report
This review paper is well written. There are a few minor changes needed, but they are largely cosmetic as it is a review paper:
A few spelling mistakes, like line 24 regime - > region.
The font changes a few times, as does the line spacing.
Check the subscripts, C0 on page 5.
Explain Fig. 10 better, particularly R1, R2 and C with regard to Fig. 9.
The results in Table 1 are very different for the VSNA and the VSA. Is there a way to check these?
Fig. 21 and 22 which are the voltage and current waveforms?
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the time spent in the paper revision.
Comment no.1 was fixed in the revised manuscript
Commentno.2 was fixed in the revised manuscript.
Comment no.3 was fixed in the revised Manuscript.
CommentNo.4. Explain Fig. 10 better, particularly R1, R2, and C with regard to Fig. 9. See attached file. Notice that the manuscript was improved and fig.10 changed to Fig.11 and Fig. 9 changed to 10.
Comment No.5.The results in Table 1 are very different for the VSNA and the VSA. Is there a way to check these?. See attached file
Comment No.6 was fixed in the revised manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a well-documented and structured paper. The information a presented in a straightforward form, easy to understand.
Some minor spell checks are in order. For example, in line 152, "the following" is repeated.
The formatting should be revised because there are quite a few problems. For example:
- starting from lines 139 to 149, the text has another color (blue)
- at lines 178 and 179, there are strikethroughs text and has another color
-there is more font type used. You should check the entire document (font in lines 326-330 seem smaller)
There are more like the ones specified above.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his comments which were properly addressed and included in the revised version of the manuscript.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
