A High-Gain Metallic-via-Loaded Antipodal Vivaldi Antenna for Millimeter-Wave Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLines 24-27: repetition of sentence, please fix.
Line 30: why the need for end-fire antennas specifically? It should be explained in the introduction because this is repeated throughout the paper.
Line 85: what are the requirements? This statement makes it sound like there is a target figure that is higher than 9 dBi but it is never explained what it is.
Line 101: Could be interesting to show E-field or surface currents at different frequencies to demonstrate this effect.
Line 129: I suggest the authors to add a line marking the -10 dB line on the plot to make it easier to read.
Line 180: How was the realized gain of fig 6b measured? What setup was used? And why is the measured gain in fig 6 c and d normalized rather than in dBi?
Line 194: the comparison with [18] is confusing since it is stated that the size of the proposed AVA is much smaller, yet in table 2 the electrical size of [18] is actually smaller. Please verify.
Some gramatical errors that should be corrected but it is perfectly readable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Can author clarify the meaning of a1 and a2 in equation (3) and (4)?
2. Since the author mentions the S11 lower than -10 dB is shifted towards to lower frequency, it's better to show results in Fig. 2 (a) and 6 (a) starting from 16 GHz, not from 17 GHz. This will be easier for the reader to understand the shift.
3. The caption of Fig. 6 (b) is not correct in the manuscript. Please correct this mistake.
4. Compared with reference [18], the size of proposed AVA is relatively larger. However, the author claims the proposed AVA achieves more compact size. Can author clarify it?
5. It's not fair to claim that the proposed antenna can achieve wider bandwidth compared with reference [20], because those two antennas work in different frequency range, especially for reference [20] working in the lower frequency range.
6. Please include the reference [21] in the table 2 for comparison.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the clarifications
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for author's effort about revising the manuscript. I don’t have any more questions about the revised one
