Dual-Axis MEMS Resonant Scanner Using 128^∘Y Lithium Niobate Thin-Film

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses a dual-axis MEMS resonant scanner using 128^oY lithium niobate thin-film.

1- The abstract should be rewritten again. There is not enough information about the methodology, proposed work, conclusion y comparison with other works in this part. Also, the abstract can be rewritten longer with more details some numerical results.

I suggest you structure your abstract as presented in https://www.principiae.be/pdfs/UGent-X-003-slideshow.pdf

2- The introduction should be extended to new published papers for recent years. In the introduction should be expressed the better state-of-art of new methods. The new references will also be examined in this part. I would like to see the articles for last and this year in this section.

3- The method was explained short without preparing enough explanation. For example, sections 2.1 and 2.2 do not have new information. They are well-know and can be referred to the references.

4- Figures 1 and 3 should be extended and be explained well in the text.

5- Simulation conditions are not well discussed. The proposed approach was illustrated only on some specific simulations, which is not enough to draw a complete and accurate conclusion about the proposed approach.

6- This method should be compared with more well-known methods in this area to determine the superiority of the proposed method. The evaluations in not enough.

7- The conclusion also should be rewritten again. It should have more information about the superiority of the proposed method. Also, the future work can be added in this section.

8- Please, do not forget that the clarity and the good structure of an article are important factors in the review decision. Please read the paper carefully (again) and correct it in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Recommendations:

This work is interesting. However, there are some minor problems in the current version of the manuscript. Thus, some important updates are still needed before I can recommend the publication.

1. It would be very useful to indicate, in the solution of which global problem the results obtained by the authors can contribute the significant support, how they can be applied, what new opportunities will be opened up in the process of using the presented achievements.
2. 2. The formulas in the article are provided with numbers in order to make a reference to them in the text. There are no references to a many formulas in the article. It means that this fragment is not used in the text in any way. If there are no references to formulas, why number them? Do you want to be like articles where this is done meaningfully? But in all reputable scientific works, only those formulas to which there are references in the text are numbered.
3. The paper describes the analytical model in detail. It seems to me important to indicate in the article for what purposes the authors performed the work on its creation: a) to make sure of the correctness of their physical ideas about the essence of the processes in question after comparing with the results of experiments; b) to select the optimal parameters of the device without performing expensive experiments; c) in order to identify by modeling conditions in which the device is ineffective in order to avoid them.
4. What practical recommendations could the authors formulate regarding the possible deployment of mass production of the device and the wide declared use?

I think that short enough remarks would be very useful and could increase the significance of the article. If authors could be able to describe such aspects of the considered problem it would be very interesting and appropriate.

This paper is well enough written to understand main results. The manuscript seems to be suitable for publication. I am therefore convinced that such a work corresponds to the content of the Journal "Acoustics" and can be published there after minor corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors corrected the article based on the comments and it can be accepted.