Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations

After the revisions and corrections made, the article is now much more precise, interesting and coherent with what it tries to convey.

The corrections in the results, with texts that accompany the graphs, are appreciated and greatly improve the understanding and clarity with which they are presented. This is very appreciated.

Likewise, it is appreciated that the discussion section has been reformulated, since it now better reflects the objective of this article.

Finally, it is regrettable that more references have not been incorporated to complete the argumentation of the theoretical framework, but it is understood that more have not been located, given the very particular and novel nature of the topic discussed.

Author Response

Thank you for your review! This is my first submission, and I learned a lot from your comments on the article. I will learn your serious attitude towards science and work, and continue to produce more results in related fields.
Thank you again!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Wang et al

 

 

Summary

The proposed manuscript, in the realm of noise shaping analog-to-digital converters, presents a new circuit architecture, including a dynamic amplifier, aiming for reduced power consumption and mitigated sensitivity to changes in process voltage and temperature conditions. Furthermore, the authors exhibit the applicable circuit diagrams and the corresponding dynamic model. Then, the study continues with a section on the implementation of the new converter and finally with a physical simulation of the circuit performance together with displaying the results.

General comments

The topic of the study is very relevant for the Electronics journal. Furthermore, even though the sectional structure of the manuscript deviates from the conventional IMRAD format (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion), the selected composition is adequate for presenting the study. Moreover, the authors put praiseworthy effort into explaining the mechanisms behind the various circuits. However, the description of the simulation is a bit ambiguous; often the term simulation refers to computer simulation, but I understood from the text that the authors had constructed a real word object to carry out tests on. To either confirm or dismiss my interpretation, the authors could add some clarifications. If for example the simulations were physical, a photography of the real-world ADC would be enlightening. Finally, the results of the study seem interesting and of practical importance.

The illustrations and the table are of good quality and the English language as well.    

Specific comments

Line 66: It seems that the word discussion has replaced the word conclusions in this sentence, but then the rest of the sentence also needs reformulation; it is not possible to not draw a discussion.

Line 154: …reduced by as much as a factor of ten, …

Line 190: amp should appear as a subscript.

Lines 242-243: What do you mean by post-simulation? Are the post-simulation experiments different from the simulation experiments?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Line 66: It seems that the word discussion has replaced the word conclusions in this sentence, but then the rest of the sentence also needs reformulation; it is not possible to not draw a discussion.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have made the following changes. Line 67 Change the sentence to ‘The experimental results are discussed in Section 5‘     Comments 2: Line 154:  …reduced by as much as a factor of ten, … Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed this sentence in line 154.   Comments 3: Line 190: amp should appear as a subscript. Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have made the following change. Line190 Change the “amp” to corner mark.   Comments 4: Lines 242-243: What do you mean by post-simulation? Are the post-simulation experiments different from the simulation experiments?   Response 4: Circuit simulation in chip design is divided into pre-simulation and post-simulation. In the pre-simulation stage, various performance parameters of mos tube are called in the software to form the whole circuit. At this time, the circuit only contains the physical parameters of the mos tube in the library, but there is still some gap with the physical meaning of the chip in the actual circuit design. In order to fully verify the performance of the chip manufactured by the factory, it is necessary to draw the chip circuit after the pre-simulation verification into a map, and then add the interference between the various metal lines in the map to the simulation. This kind of simulation after adding actual wire interference on the layout is called post-simulation. The results of the post-simulation fully take into account the various errors produced in the factory production, and are closer to the actual test results.