Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 28, 2024

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Yuan-Fong Chou Chau, Editor

PONE-D-24-00283Metasurface-based dual-sense circularly polarized antenna for MIMO/full-duplex applicationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tran-Huy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 17 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yuan-Fong Chou Chau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology (VAST) under grant number

TĐANQP.02/23–25"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have presented a two-element antenna array with dual-sense circular polarization, wideband operation, and high isolation characteristics. While the article is well-written and the discussions are engaging, several points need to be addressed before accepting this manuscript with minor revisions.

1. Describe the simulation method in the introduction section.

2. Elaborate on the novelty of the work in the introduction section. Clarify the unique properties of the proposed structures compared to existing literature.

3. The title of this manuscript relates to Metasurface-based polarized antenna, but there is no description of metamaterial and metasurface devices. To help the readers comprehend, address this issue and include other approaches of optical metasurface-based devices (Plasmonics, 2024, 19(1), 481–493, and https://doi.org/10.1007/s11468-024-02219-2) in the introduction section.

4. Fig. 2 illustrates the simulation result of the designed structure, but there is no information on the simulation methods in the text. Please clarify the simulation method and setting in more detail in the text.

5. Clarify the impact of structural parameters on device performance in the text.

6. Clarify in more detail the mechanism and the result discussion of Figs. 5, 7, 12, 13, and 14.

7. Ensure to check and correct any typos and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, a two-element MS-based antenna array with wideband operation and high isolationhas been investigated. The paper is Well written and well presented. The contributions are novel and justified.

However, include state of the art work to further strengthen the literature, like https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288793

https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15091641

https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2286011

Recommended for publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Original Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-00283

Original Article Title: “Metasurface-based dual-sense circularly polarized antenna for MIMO/full-duplex applications”

To: Reviewer

Re: Response to reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate you for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them.

We are uploading our point-by-point response to the comments, an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes, and a manuscript without track changes.

Best regards,

Reviewer 1: The authors have presented a two-element antenna array with dual-sense circular polarization, wideband operation, and high isolation characteristics. While the article is well-written and the discussions are engaging, several points need to be addressed before accepting this manuscript with minor revisions.

Comment #1: Describe the simulation method in the introduction section.

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: The simulation tool is mentioned in Paragraph 4, Section Introduction of the revised manuscript.

Comment #2: Elaborate on the novelty of the work in the introduction section. Clarify the unique properties of the proposed structures compared to existing literature.

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: The novelty of the proposed work is briefly mentioned in Paragraph 4, Section “Introduction” of the revised manuscript.

Comment #3: The title of this manuscript relates to Metasurface-based polarized antenna, but there is no description of metamaterial and metasurface devices. To help the readers comprehend, address this issue and include other approaches of optical metasurface-based devices (Plasmonics, 2024, 19(1), 481–493, and https://doi.org/10.1007/s11468-024-02219-2) in the introduction section.

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: The suggested reference is included in the revised manuscript as ref [21, 22].

Comment #4: Fig. 2 illustrates the simulation result of the designed structure, but there is no information on the simulation methods in the text. Please clarify the simulation method and setting in more detail in the text.

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: Further discussion about the simulation method and setting is added to Paragraph 2, Section “Single-element design”.

Comment #5: Clarify the impact of structural parameters on device performance in the text.

Author response: The authors do not fully understand the Reviewer’s comment. We are apologizing for this inconvenience. We are willing to address this properly with further explanation.

In fact, all the important structural parameters of the proposed design have been mentioned in Section “Optimization process”.

Comment #6: Clarify in more detail the mechanism and the result discussion of Figs. 5, 7, 12, 13, and 14.

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: The result discussion of Fig. 5 is highlighted in Paragraph 2, Section “Antenna operation characteristic”. The discussion for Fig. 7 is added to paragraph 1, Section “Matching optimization”. Figs. 12 and 13 show the comparison between simulations and measurements, the reason for the difference is highlighted in Paragraph 1, Section “Measured results”. The discussion for Fig. 14 is further added to Paragraph 1, Section “MIMO parameters”.

Comment #7: Ensure to check and correct any typos and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: The paper has been thoroughly checked.

Reviewer 2: In this paper, a two-element MS-based antenna array with wideband operation and high isolation has been investigated. The paper is Well written and well presented. The contributions are novel and justified.

However, include state of the artwork to further strengthen the literature, like:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288793

https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15091641

https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2286011

Author response: Agreed.

Author action: The suggested references are cited in the revised manuscript as ref [1–3].

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - R2.docx
Decision Letter - Yuan-Fong Chou Chau, Editor

Metasurface-based dual-sense circularly polarized antenna for MIMO/full-duplex applications

PONE-D-24-00283R1

Dear Dr. Tran-Huy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yuan-Fong Chou Chau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yuan-Fong Chou Chau, Editor

PONE-D-24-00283R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tran-Huy,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yuan-Fong Chou Chau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .