Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. at the end of introduction section,the authors need to clearly mention their contributions in this work point wise, like novelties, advantages, applied methodology, applications etc

2. as per designed proposed structures are concerned, how the authors have reached to the optimal geometry? Include some design analytical equations.

3. In Figure 6,7, and 8; use proper legends to indicate which shows variations in S22 and which one shows S21?

4.In the literature review part ,that is the introduction section of the article, the authors must need to include recent references from 2020 to 2022.

the recent references are very less. Even in comparison table, the proposed work has been compared with old references of 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2018.

5. Include more recent references in the performance comparison table. also include a major contribution of the work as one heading in one of the column. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors investigated a new design of the transformer used in the transition from a microstrip line (MSL) to a regular waveguide (RWG). The proposed design features a corrugated substrate integrated waveguide (CSIW), a tapered MSL, and a stepped RWG. Various design parameters were analyzed to evaluate their influence on the bandwidth, including the length of the tapered MSL, the host waveguide width of CSIW, and the distance between open circuit stubs and the RWG transformer. In the end, the authors compared the current design to the other previously reported transition methods from the literature and concluded that the proposed design was simpler in manufacturing and could achieve wideband in the THz application. I found the authors structured their paper well and the results were well presented. This work provides a valuable addition to the new designs for the THz communication systems.

Author Response

The authors extremely appreciate the editor and reviewers, who spent time and effort reviewing this paper. More recent references have been compared in the introduction section and the comparison table. Some mistakes are revised. Other revisions are made as well to make the pictures and sentences more easily understood. We hope the paper has a better quality after our revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

The content of the paper describes clearly enough the authors' approach to the configuration of a microstrip-RWG transition based on the advantages of C-SIW as an intermediate transmission line.

Please take into account the following comments/notes:

Rows 85-86: the authors state that "the ground plane is on the bottom of the substrate, which is connected to the metallic host." What type of material was used to make the electrical contact between the RWG and the structure made on quartz substrate? Do the method and materials used ensure good reproducibility of the RWG connections without affecting losses and impedance matching?

Row 148: Smith must be capitalized!

Rows 156 - 157 and 161 - 162: the authors present the values in Ω of the normalised impedances. Note: do NOT use Ω units for the normalised impedances! They are actually ratios of two impedances!

The values of the parameters S_ii and S_ij are usually shown without sign, as in Abstract, Table 2 or in rows 224 and 225.

It is recommended that the values of the input/output reflection coefficients are also given in Table 2.

Please insert a photograph of the whole structure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf