Design, Analysis and Simulation of Microstrip Antenna Arrays with Flexible Substrate in Different Frequency, for Use in UAV-Assisted Marine Communications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents a theoretical study on the design, analysis and study of microstrip antenna arrays with different frequency and power supply, with flexible substrate for UAV-assisted marine communications. The author provided the design of microstrip antenna arrays and presented comparative simulation results. I appreciate the author’s effort to make all these works done. Nevertheless, the reviewer holds some concerns about this work which you can find below. I suggest that the authors revise and improve the manuscript accordingly.

The title of this manuscript should be rewritten for noticeable.

The author provides several works of literature to find research gaps and motivation, which is not convincing. Highlight the research gap and main contribution of this article which is not addressed before.

The literature review on the subject at hand is not complete. In addition, the literature of this work is weak, and it should be updated. More importantly, the fading model for UAV-assisted communication should be reviewed. The following reference could help the authors. DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2023.3252822, DOI: 10.1109/TWC.2022.3147823, DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.10.049

For better understanding, the authors should mention which expression is used for the simulation results.

The presentation of all simulation results could have been better. Moreover, discussions regarding the results (Figs. 14) are very less than expected. Rewrite these for better understanding.

Finally, I strongly recommend revising the paper to improve its readability.

Author Response

I am attaching the response of the reviewer's report 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with the design of a microstrip antenna array for intended use in maritime communication. The authors would like to solve problems by establishing the connection link with the help of the UAV.

There are some issues which need to be addressed:

1. The introduction is very short and backed by only seven references. It needs to be widened, and it must clearly point at what is the actual problem and how it will be handled with a new approach.

2. Despite the fact that the UAV term is used in the name of the article, in the abstract and the keywords, it is discussed only briefly in the whole manuscript.

3. There are too many keywords.

4. Equations are not centered (centre alignment). Parameters in equations should be explained. Some of the parameters used are mentioned in the text, but mostly there is no explanation provided.

5. Some of the terms in figures (i.e. Figure 6) are not in English. Figure 21 uses different sizes of font. Figure 1 - 3 looks somehow "unprofessional".

6. There are also some formatting errors. Lower indexes are missing/incorrectly formatted (i.e. line 266, 273 etc.)

The manuscript is generally interesting, but I´m not finding it genuine or containing something novel - worth publishing in the current contents journal.

Author Response

Good ninght dear reviewer,

I appreciate your comments, and I hope the corrections will help for your approval.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further issues with this manuscript.

Author Response

I have done some changes, due to error gramaticals, and I rewritte the introduction to improve it

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. Most of the issues were addressed and corrected, but unfortunately, there are still some issues left.

The introduction was modified but not rewritten as suggested. You only added one paragraph with a "bunch" of references, but this "trick" didn´t work on me.

The references should be numbered as they appear in the manuscript. You cannot jump from 7 to 12, and from 18 to 21. References should be rearranged and renumbered.

The formatting problem with upper and lower indexes was entirely ignored by the authors. (i.e. the first formula (1) - the PRX and d0 I believe should be written as P_RX and d₀.). The same applies to the whole manuscript.

The authors corrected the non-English terms in figures but left them in tables. (i.e. Table 7, 11, 12 - Directividad, Ganancia).

There are a lot of misspellings in the manuscript. I suggest the asking for help from English editing services. (i.e. Table 9. - Simulat, Table. 10 - Distan array). The same goes for figures. (Figure.20 - Distand array, Figure.21 - Subtrate - and you have even screenshotted the figure with highlighted textbox!)

This manuscript has potential as there was a lot of work done, but the representation is very weak.

Author Response

Good morning,

I have changed all you told me. I have add changes control in WORD, so you can check all that I change. I hope that you find it well.

Thanks for all