A Compact Triplexer Based on InP/InGaAsP-MMI Coupler with Channel-Shaped Core Layer for 50G PON

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled “A Compact Triplexer based on InP/InGaAsP-MMI Coupler with channel-shape core Layer for 50G PON”, the authors propose a channel-shape multi-mode interference (C-MMI) coupler with potential applications in future passive optical networks (PON). While the results are numerical, the discussions are well-presented and offer intriguing insights for potential applications. However, the authors fail to provide crucial details regarding the simulation setup, such as the software used, simulation conditions, mesh sizes, boundary conditions, among other necessary technical specifics. This information is essential for the reproducibility of numerical studies. From a broader perspective, the manuscript contains intriguing points that merit publication, provided that the following issues are addressed:

 

-> The authors must include a dedicated section outlining the simulation setup comprehensively, enabling other researchers to replicate the findings presented here.

 

-> Acronyms must be defined. For instance, within the abstract section, the authors introduce MMI without elucidation, followed by 50G PON, O-S-L, and PON OLT. These unexplained acronyms detract from the readability and diminish the potential engagement of readers with the content presented in this work. The same applies for several acronyms in the main text.

 

->  Some recent references for WDMs and CWDMs were missed in the manuscript, see for example:

·      DOI: 10.1364/OL.425595

·      DOI: 10.1038/s41566-018-0275-4

·      DOI:10.3390/s22218163

·      DOI: 10.1007/s11107-017-0732-x

 

-> Throughout the manuscript, there are several minor grammar issues that require revision to enhance readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

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.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work titled "A Compact Triplexer based on InP/InGaAsP-MMI Coupler with channel-shape core Layer for 50G PON" deals with the engineering of a triplexer based on a peculiar waveguide geometry able to efficiently separate a field composes of three different frequency contributions.
The work is merely theoretical and describes the engineering process is articulated in a CAD-based design step, the evaluation of the structure efficiency by means of a BPM method, and a final estimate of the fabrication tolerances is done in order to demonstrate the usefulness of the investigated device.

Althoug lacking of a certain originality, the work is well presented and complete with all the required research items and is worth of publication, especially because the authors' aim is to promote their device for practical implementation and usages in mass production.
I jut recommend two minor fixings (a definition and to add some graph details) to ultimate the draft; more precisely :
1 - please, define MMI at the begiining (i.e., in the first chapter, "Introduction") of the manuscript;
2 - approximately on lines 192-198 (chapter 3, "Simulated Results and Discussion"), the authors cite the tolerances induced by the Insertion Loss and the Extinction Ratio in terms of wavelength ranges, but this should be shown also by setting some lines/intersection points on the same graphs on pag.6 (fig.6), and the same for fig.7.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor corrections are required, the most consisting rather in correcting typos, some sparse verb conjugations and partially deceiving sentences.
For instance, see "which exhibiting very low refractive " (line 54), or "in which both 𝑝1 should be either even or odd integers, while 𝑝2 keeps odd or even, 96
different with 𝑝1. " (line 96-97).

Author Response

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.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have properly addressed my previous concerns. I recommend publishing this work.