Switchable DBR Filters Using Semiconductor Distributed Doped Areas (ScDDAs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors are presenting a novel filter design with reduced active surface components. The work demonstrates the feasibility of engineering the low to high frequency transmission characteristics by tailoring the design geometries of the doped areas. The simulations shown are within an acceptable agreement with the measurements. The demonstrated idea is promising and would have a good impact.

Yet, some statements should be better expressed and further discussed within the text. There is excessive number of plots which could be merged together for an easier visualization to the readers.

The concept is nice and the research methodology is correctly conducted for this reason, I would like to reconsider after a major revision.

I would like to thank all the Authors for their efforts and I kindly ask them to address my comments and suggestions below:

1. The text is clearly written and well presented. The English language and style are fine still an overall check is required.

2. The Authors tinge the text with pop-culture and I personally like it. Yet I would suggest the Authors to give credit to: term “Internet of Things” was coined by Kevin Ashton in 1999 during his work at Procter&Gamble”

3. In lines 48, 49: “In this context, the aim of the present paper is to propose narrow-band filters such as DBR using ScDDAs, i.e., with integrated active components in the substrate.”

4. I would suggest the authors to better emphasize the difference between “integrated active components” and “active surface components” in the text and/or in the abstract, since in the abstract it is written: “This paper presents a novel way to switch dual-behavior resonator (DBR) filters without any additional active surface-mounted components.” Even if it is trivial for experts in the field, it would be confusing for the readers from diverse backgrounds.

5. In line 63: I ask the authors to explicitly identify the abbreviations used and cite to the software trademark; if meant; PathWave Advanced Design System (ADS)

6. In line 65: “Then, if one resonator is short-circuited, this modifies the central frequency of the bandpass filter. “I kindly ask the authors to better explain in the text, the short-circuit and the central frequency relationship.

7. In Equation 1. The physical quantities used in the formulas must be explicitly expressed.

8. All figures needs to be re-arranged in terms of the font and the format to keep the unity throughout the text. Moreover in figure 1b and 2b the legends must be re-located as they cut the resonance points.

9. The modified central frequencies are not shown in the given plots.3.2GHz in Figure 2b and similarly 2.5GHz in Fig3.b.

10. I kindly ask the authors to comment on the symmetry of the system. In more clear words: the off state of LF2 seems to be the exact with the on state of LF1 and similarly same for the on states. For this reason it seems as if the plots are repeating themselves. I kindly ask the authors to merge the plots for an easier evaluation of the design concept and/or conceptual differences.

11. The Figure 2b and Figure 3b plots are repeated all together in Figure 5. I kindly ask the authors to merge the plots (as indicated in the previous comment).
12. I ask the authors to plot the measured and the calculated values together for and easier elaboration if possible. Else  I would suggest showing them in the same figure at least for a side by side comparison.

13. I kindly ask the Authors to explicitly express the abbreviations used in the tables (Lstub and Ldop vs…) (even if they are shown in the figure only). And also, ask the authors to format the decimal points used and round where needed within the table to coincide with each other and also with the literature values.

14. In Figure 9: I kindly ask the authors to add the DBR1 scheme for an easier comparison.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, we have answered to all of them in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a novel way to switch dual-behavior resonator (DBR) filters without any additional active surface-mounted components. The results obtained are good. However, the following issues should be addressed:

• The second last paragraph in Introduction section starting from “In this context, the aim of……Line 48”, should clearly highlight the novelty of your proposed work.
• The last paragraph of the Introduction puts light on the structure of the paper. Sections with Roman numbers are used to refer the Sections with English numbers. It is good to use the same numbering style throughout the paper.
• The design procedure is not sufficiently explained in the paper. How the optimum values for different physical parameters (DBR dimensions in Table 1) have been obtained?
• Table 3 shows the comparison of the proposed work with the reported works [8-11]. The compared works are old. It’s better to compare the proposed work with the research work reported in recent past.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, we have answered to all of them in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A good paper, with a clear presentation and good experimental / theoretical results

Author Response

Thank you for your encouraging comment

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank all the Authors for their efforts. The authors have answered my comments satisfactorily. I would recommend publication in its present form.

With my best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

No more comments from the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

No other comments.