Full Stokes Mid-Wavelength Infrared Polarization Photodetector Based on the Chiral Dielectric Metasurface
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Recommend for publication after revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some typos in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, the authors propose a numerical design of polarimetric imaging detector. The detector is based on the chiral metasurfaces, and the authors use 6 different patterns to reconstruct the polarization status of the input light. The authors first discussed the design of the chiral metastructures and its properties, and then discussed the effect of finite CD on the errors of the full stokes imaging. The method, design the numerical results are well presented, the investigations of multipole decomposition are interesting, and the performance shows great potential. Therefore, I would recommend the paper to be published on Photonics journal. However, I still think there are several problems that may be interest to readers:
1. The chiral structure in the paper is Z-shape. This Z-shape structure has been proposed before several times. For example:
Ouyang, Leixin, et al. "Near-infrared chiral plasmonic metasurface absorbers." Optics express 26.24 (2018): 31484-31489.
Chen, Chen, et al. "Metasurfaces with planar chiral meta-atoms for spin light manipulation." Nano Letters 21.4 (2021): 1815-1821.
We can see that the same idea has been proposed in near-infrared and plasmonic metasurfaces. In terms of the design methodology, is there any differences compared with the previous papers that propose the same type of structure?
2. The potential fabrication process is described paper, but not clear enough. Please list the citation for indium column interconnect process (line 85).
3. When arranging different patterns on the same detector, there are several things that may need to considered/mentioned. First, what is the minimum periodicity of the pixel? Second, what is the minimum distance to block the cross-talk between the pixels? These questions are essential in estimating the performance of a photodetector.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
First, some sentences need to be polished. For example, in line 121-123, "The robustness where the device performance does not vary with the size of geometry is very exciting news for the fabrication process."
There are typos in the text too. For example, in Line 10, "COMSOL soft". In line 172, "Fig. 3e". In line 183-184, "Fig. 3f and Fig. 3g".
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
