Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting and well-presented work. The study presents a theoretical study without confirmation by any practical results, which limits the degree of confidence. It is not clear and well-defined the contributions of the work. The figures should be improved, the scale values ​​are too close.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty and contribution of your work is limited and needs further justification, and some assumptions and modeling need more explanation. Also, grammar and language issues make the manuscript difficult to follow and need to be addressed. Furthermore, simulation results are limited.

Clarify the novelty and contribution of your work.

Summarize the related work in the table form for readers better understanding.

Simulations have not been replicated for different seeds and limited scenarios were considered, no confidence intervals are shown, and all simulation parameters are arbitrary selected, which impacts the generality of the results.

Please use the latest or newest references

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article Propagation characteristics of modulated EHF signal in the wake region of plasma sheath deals with EHF communication in the wake region of the plasma sheath of a hypersonic vehicle. In the paper, different modulation principles in various different frequency bands are used in the wake region of the plasma sheath and their performance, BER, is studied. Moreover, the influence of several important parameters is simulated as well, for example the tail channel angle, etc.

Generally, the language level throughout the paper is very good and only some minor corrections are recommended. The organization of the paper is good, the theoretical introduction as well as the simulation result and its discussion are balanced and optimal. The paper is technically sound, the adopted methods and simulation techniques are good.

In my opinion, the resolution and dimension of Fig. 2 and 3 is low and should be increased. Especially, the dimension should be increased in order to increase the readability of both figures.

The list of references does not contain many up-to-date references and it should be updated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. There is no continuity between the statements in the complete manuscript.

2. Authors contribution has been not highlighted.

3. The total transmission coefficient and phase shift characteristics must be discussed briefly.

4. Only BER have been considered, comparison and improvements from the existence not discussed.

5.  Very old references cited in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction section does not clearly describe the motivation of the research, please rewrite this section to make it clear.

References can be in a single format.

The simulation section is not detailed enough. Authors are suggested to provide more information about their employed data and simulation process

Authors are suggested to provide more information about future works

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx