A P/X Dual-Band Co-Aperture Array with Dual-Polarized Antenna Based on Forest Biomass Measurement Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates and reports on a dual-band co-aperture array with dual-polarized antenna based on forest biomass measurement applications. The manuscript is well researched and well written but needs some minor and major revisions for it to be recommended for publication.

Starting with the title, the word 'antenna' is missing. I suggest revising the title to read "A P/X dual-band co-aperture array with dual-polarized antenna based on forest biomass measurement applications".

One major issue with the manuscript is that the authors did not include the antenna radiation pattern plot. This is essential and needs to be addressed in the revised version.

Figure 7 contains three images. Hence, should have the sub-labels (a), (b), (c) with corresponding sub-captions.

The conclusion is too brief in its current state. This section should be revised and should include key results reported in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, a P-band array and a X-band array that share the same physical aperture and have dual polarizations are designed. The antenna design is verified by numerical and experimental data. It is a well-written article. However, I would like the authors to address one issue before this paper is accepted for publication. After I read the paper, I do not understand the meaning of "normal radiation mode" or "normal radiation conditions." Does it mean that all the antenna elements are excited by a uniform phase and the radiation pattern exhibits a beam toward the broadside direction? Is it how the authors' experiments were conducted, that is, were all the antenna elements excited by the same phase in the authors' experiments? If so, how was the beam steered toward another direction?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have marginally improved the manuscript by considering the suggestions from the last round of review. Hence, I am happy to approve the manuscript for publication after the authors have considered the following minor suggestion:

In the Keywords paragraph, the phrase "antenna arrays" featured four times. My suggestion is that the authors consider deleting three out of the four instances, as a single occurrence is enough for indexing.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English Language editing/proofreading required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and improved our manuscript. The keywords paragraph and the language errors have been modified. For the convenience of identifying the progression of improvements made to the manuscript, different colors (yellow and blue) were used to highlight the modifications made in the two stages. We are looking forward to your further feedback and willing to make additional modifications and improvements as needed.