Broadband Microstrip Antenna for 5G Wireless Systems Operating at 28 GHz
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study presents a design of a high-performance 28 GHz antenna for 5G.
The achieved performance is high and this is a significant contribution.
However, ideas to achieve such high performance are unclear.
Besides, the comparison with the conventional designs is insufficient.
Please see the following comments.
Comment 1.
What are the innovative techniques presented in this study?
Although the procedure of the design is presented using some references, its main idea, the factors for excellent characteristics,
and the novelty of this study is not sufficiently explained.
Readers may think that the simple combination of only existing design methods and existing software is the proposed design methodology.
Section 4 outlines the ideas, but it is difficult to understand where the novel technologies are implemented in the proposed design and optimization methods.
Thus, please clearly explain the novel ideas and the reasons for the better performance of the proposed antenna within the sections on the design processes.
Comment 2.
With respect to the optimization process, please present not the software but the algorithm to achieve optimal antenna performance.
I recommend using mathematical formulas to explain the optimization algorithm.
Comment 3.
Please compare the performance of the proposed antenna with the antennas presented in the conventional studies quantitatively. In addition, this comparison should be discussed in the section on the main results, not the conclusion section.
Comment 4.
The characters of some figures are small and hard to see.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors only do simulations of a traditional patch at 28 GHz. And the lumped port is used in the simulation. As we known, the feed network is an important factor in 5G antenna design. I have some comments as following:
1. The Q-factor of the antenna should be given, which is can explain the bandwidth of antenna. And effect of stub dimension should be discussed.
2. The quality of figure is very poor, the authors should redraw the figure in some software, such as matlab or origin
3. The fabrication and measurement process should be given to prove the effectiveness of the proposed antenna.
So I think this paper is not suitable to be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your appropriate revisions.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think this manscript address all the review's comments, it should be accepted.
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.
