8-port MIMO antenna at 27 GHz for n261 band and exploring for body centric communication

Anupma Gupta; Meet Kumari; Manish Sharma; Mohammed H. Alsharif; Peerapong Uthansakul; Monthippa Uthansakul; Shonak Bansal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305524

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 31, 2023
4 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Muhibur Rahman, Editor PONE-D-23-358542x4 MIMO Antennas at 27 GHz for n261 band and exploring for Body Centric CommunicationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Uthansakul, 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 Feb 18 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, Muhibur Rahman 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by Suranaree University of Technology (SUT).” 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. 5. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 6. We note that Figures 17 and 19 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 17 and 19 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. Additional Editor Comments: (1) Please show the novelty in much more comprehensive manner. (2) According to Reviewer 1, I am also worried: "There is a noticeable discrepancy between the simulation and measurement s-parameters data." Please address it with supporting materials. (3) More explanation on radiation patterns and radiation performance must be given as recommended by both reviewers. (4) Finally there must be mathematical analysis with physical support from simulation and measurements. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: Comments to the Author 1- The gain is significantly lower when compared to the values reported in Table 1. Additionally, it is notably low for millimeter-wave communications at 27 GHz. Please justify. 2- There is a repetition in explaining the findings of the research at the end of the introduction. Please correct. 3- In section II Single Radiator antenna design methodology in free space, the authors mentioned (Antenna is designed using a ring shaped defected ground and a rectangular radiator with two parallel slots). Where is the ring shape in Fig. 1? 4- In Fig. 10(b), the coupling in the opposite patches is evident, potentially exceeding that in Fig. 10(a). Additionally, the coupling between adjacent patches in Fig. 10(b) has increased when compared to MIMO without decoupling technique, as depicted in Fig. 10(a). please justify. 5- There is a noticeable discrepancy between the simulation and measurement s-parameters data. Considering the close proximity of the SMAs in the prototype, have the authors incorporated the SMA model in the simulation? 6- Please incorporate the MIMO performance, ECC, and DG into the comparison in Table 1. Reviewer #2: The work presented is not novel and many corrections are required to be incorporated in the manuscript. 1. In the title it is mentioned as 2X4 MIMO antenna..in the conclusion section it is mentioned as 2X8 MIMO antenna. It is clear that the authors have no idea of using the MIMO terminology. Authors are asked to clarify what is mXn MIMO antenna system in the manuscript. Also, correct the terminology in the entire manuscript. 2. Table 1 can be given at the end of the last section for better perception to the readers. 3. In the first paragraph of second section, authors have mentioned that a ring shaped DGS is used..but it is not seen in Fig. 1. 4. Representation of S11 and S21 are not correct in the entire manuscript. 5. More explanation on radiation patterns is to be given. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305524.r001
Revision 1
30 Mar 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, First of all, we would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the editor and reviewers for their valuable time to make suggestions to improve the quality of this paper. We have revised the manuscript in accordance to the reviewer’s comments, and the changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted by yellow. In the following, we give a point-by-point reply to the reviewers’ comments: Editor Comments Comment1. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. Response1. All data source files are shared as a supplementary file. Result file is also cited in the manuscript as a link with reference number [33]. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_nQgtMZ9CdXgqzkAUifkRvG0QytSwH0I/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107203764657837180766&rtpof=true&sd=true Comment2. We note that Figures 17 and 19 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. Response2. Figure 17 and 19 in the manuscript are not taken from any other source. Images are created designed by authors on the software CST Microwave Studio. This software provides a material library for different dielectric materials, bio tissues and 3-D models. Comment3. Please show the novelty in much more comprehensive manner. Response3. New wearable MIMO antennas with solution of all aforementioned issues are of great interest for researchers. Proposed structure has the following features • Compact and simple geometry • Stable impedance and radiation characteristics for heterogeneous body tissues, • Conformal to use with wearable devices, • Ensure tissue safety from EM waves, • Excellent diversity performance for MIMO operation. • Suitable for both the free space and on-body devices operating at 27 GHz for 5G new radio bands lying in frequency range2 (FR2). Novelty of antenna is added in the last paragraph of manuscript and highlighted in yellow color. Comment4. According to Reviewer 1, I am also worried: "There is a noticeable discrepancy between the simulation and measurement s-parameters data." Please address it with supporting materials. Response4. It is correct that, simulated and measured s-parameters are not overlapped. Measured reflection coefficient has slight wider bandwidth and upward shifted curve. This is due to the number of connectors placed in close proximity and difference in the property of phantom considered in the simulation and measurement. In simulation model all the feedlines are connected with the 50-ohm ports, no SMA model is incorporated in the simulation. Soldering loss, SMA connector effect and phantom property variation has cause to mismatch in s-parameters. Experimental results show that antenna has occupied the required bandwidth for all the radiators from 26 GHz to 28 GHz with good impedance matching and reflection coefficient value below -20 dB. • For the good impedance matching reflection coefficient value should be below -10 dB, here all the measured values are below -30 dB (Figure 21a). Maximum variation of simulated and measured reflection coefficient is 5 dB. • Impedance bandwidth for simulated antenna is 2 GHz (26 to 28 GHz), for the measured results it is about 2.2 GHz (25.9 GHz to 26.1 GHz). • For MIMO performance port isolation should be lower than -15 dB, here for all the measured and simulated plots it is below -22 dB (Figure 21 b). Over the operating bandwidth, variation of 2 dB is observed for the simulated and measured results. • Similar type of variation in simulated and experimental results is found in various literature also. [1]. Gao GP, Hu B, Wang SF and Yang C (2018) Wearable circular ring slot antenna with EBG structure for wireless body area network. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 17, 434–437. [2]. Hu B, Gao GP, He LL, Cong XD and Zhao JN (2017) Bending and on-arm effects on a wearable antenna for 2.45 GHz body area network. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 15, 378–381 [3]. Koo T, Hong Y, Park G, Shin K and Yook J (2015) Extremely low-profile antenna for attachable bio-sensors. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 63, 1537–1544. Comment5. More explanation on radiation patterns and radiation performance must be given as recommended by both reviewers. Resposne5. As suggested radiation pattern is explained more and directivity plot is also added to show the radiation intensity orientation. Figure 22 shows the 2-D radiation pattern of antenna for free space and on body operating conditions at 27 GHz. Dipole-like radiation pattern has been observed for free space and broadside radiation pattern is observed for on-body condition in both the E-plane and H-plane. On-body operation, internally reflected and refracted waves superimposed with the antenna radiations and increases the forward radiation of the antenna. Broadside radiation pattern is desirable for the on body devices for making reliable communication link with the external monitoring devices and reducing the absorption of EM waves by body tissue. It is virtually impossible to maintain same orientation with on and off body device due to different human activities. Therefore, broadside radiation pattern helps to overcome orientation mismatch and transmits maximum energy in the direction opposite to body. Simulated and measured results are in close approximation to each other. Both in E-plane and H-plane maximum radiation intensity can be observed at 300 and 3150. 3-D power pattern for the antenna is shown in Figure 23. Maximum free space gain is 2.53 dB and on-body gain is 4.64 dB. As back radiations are reduced in the on-body operations (Figure 22), antenna gain is improved in forward direction. Reflection coefficient of proposed structure is also improved for on-body configuration and justify the antenna on-body performance. Besides this, directivity of antenna is one of the important characteristic for the on-body devices. Figure 24 shows the 3-D directivity plot for the free space and on-body operation and confirming a forward-oriented beam suitable for on body to off body communications. Maximum directivity of 5.06 dBi and 9.5 dBi is achieved for free space and on-body conditions respectively. High directivity shows that antenna radiation intensity is higher in a specific direction. Maximum radiations are oriented towards the normal to the surface of body tissue, thus reducing the absorption and loss of radiations in body tissue. Improvement of directivity for on-body condition is due to internal reflections by the heterogeneous body tissue layers. (a) (b) Figure 24 3-D directivity plot (a) free space for port-2 (b) free space for port-8 (c) on-body port-2 (d) on-body port 8 Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author Comment1. The gain is significantly lower when compared to the values reported in Table 1. Additionally, it is notably low for millimeter-wave communications at 27 GHz. Please justify. Resposne1. In is studied that directivity is the important function for the body area network application. Broadside unidirectional radiation id desired for on body to off body communication. Comparison table is corrected and directivity is compared with the directivity of the existing structures at 27 GHz. To justify the gain value Figure 24, representing the 3-D directivity plot of antenna at 27 GHz is shown. Proposed structure has more than 9.5 dBi gain in broadside direction which is better than the other MIMO structures reported in comparison Table. Figure 24 3-D directivity plot (a) free space for port-2 (b) free space for port-8 (c) on-body port-2 (d) on-body port 8 Comment2. There is a repetition in explaining the findings of the research at the end of the introduction. Please correct. Response2. The repeated text at the end of Introduction section is removed. Comment3. In section II Single Radiator antenna design methodology in free space, the authors mentioned (Antenna is designed using a ring shaped defected ground and a rectangular radiator with two parallel slots). Where is the ring shape in Fig. 1? Response3. As the shape of the ground plane is a rectangular closed shaped, it is corrected as rectangular-shaped ring ground. Comment4. In Fig. 10(b), the coupling in the opposite patches is evident, potentially exceeding that in Fig. 10(a). Additionally, the coupling between adjacent patches in Fig. 10(b) has increased when compared to MIMO without decoupling technique, as depicted in Fig. 10(a). please justify. Response4. Without the decoupling network, in 4-port MIMO all the radiators (opposite and adjacent) lost the resonance frequency and detunes at 30 GHz as shown in Figure 10 (S-parameter plot for 4-port MIMO without decoupling). Thus, the less coupling is visible in the surface current plot in Figure 11 (a) at 27 GHz. After adding the decoupling network, all the radiators are tuned at 27 GHz, and coupling effect for the same frequency is visible in Figure 11 (b). To justify this three surface current distribution plots are shown. In 2-port MIMO and in 4-port MIMO antenna with decoupling network, adjacent radiators have similar coupling effect. Figure 7 (c) 2-port MIMO without decoupling Figure 11 (a) Figure 11(b) Figure 11. Surface current distribution of 4-element structure (a) without decoupling structure (b) with decoupling structure S-parameters plot for all the three configurations are also compared and confirms the isolation of antenna. In Figure 8, S-parameter plot for 2-port antenna. Here the isolation between two adjacent radiators is -22.5 dB. Figure (10), S-parameter plot for 4-port MIMO antenna without decoupling network shows that frequency of patch1(S11) and patch2(S22) is detuned at 30 GHz (adjacent patches), and opposite patches are not resonating (S33) and (S44). Thus, the S21, S31, and S41 are showing high isolation. Due to this frequency detuning effect surface current plot without decoupling network shows less coupling at 27 GHz in adjacent radiator. In order to make antenna resonance frequency and impedance matching stable and avoid the coupling effect a decoupling network is added. S-parameter plots for 4-port antenna after decoupling network (Figure 14) shows that isolation between patch1 and patch2 is -21 dB which is slight less than the port-2 configuration. Commnet5. There is a noticeable discrepancy between the simulation and measurement s-parameters data. Considering the close proximity of the SMAs in the prototype, have the authors incorporated the SMA model in the simulation? Response5. It is correct that, simulated and measured s-parameters are not overlapped. Measured reflection coefficient has slight wider bandwidth and upward shifted curve. This is due to the number of connectors placed in close proximity and difference in the property of phantom considered in the simulation and measurement. In simulation model all the feedlines are connected with the 50-ohm ports, no SMA model is incorporated in the simulation. Soldering loss, SMA connector effect and phantom property variation has cause to mismatch in s-parameters. Experimental results show that antenna has occupied the required bandwidth for all the radiators from 26 GHz to 28 GHz with good impedance matching and reflection coefficient value below -20 dB. Similar type of variation in simulated and experimental results is found in various literature also. [1]. Gao GP, Hu B, Wang SF and Yang C (2018) Wearable circular ring slot antenna with EBG structure for wireless body area network. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 17, 434–437. [2]. Hu B, Gao GP, He LL, Cong XD and Zhao JN (2017) Bending and on-arm effects on a wearable antenna for 2.45 GHz body area network. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 15, 378–381 [3]. Koo T, Hong Y, Park G, Shin K and Yook J (2015) Extremely low-profile antenna for attachable bio-sensors. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 63, 1537–1544. Commnet6. Please incorporate the MIMO performance, ECC, and DG into the comparison in Table 1. Response6: As suggested by the reviewer Columns for ECC and DG parameters are included in the comparison table in the manuscript. Reviewer #2: Comments to the Author Comment1: In the title it is mentioned as 2X4 MIMO antenna. in the conclusion section it is mentioned as 2X8 MIMO antenna. It is clear that the authors have no idea of using the MIMO terminology. Authors are asked to clarify what is mXn MIMO antenna system in the manuscript. Also, correct the terminology in the entire manuscript. Response1: Authors are thankful for this valuable comment. MIMO mXn is corrected in the entire manuscript and highlighted in yellow color. Comment2: Table 1 can be given at the end of the last section for better perception to the readers. Response2: Table 1 is now included in the end of the last section of the manuscript. Comment3: In the first paragraph of second section, authors have mentioned that a ring shaped DGS is used. but it is not seen in Fig. 1. Response3: As the shape of the ground plane is a rectangular closed shaped, It is corrected as rectangular-shaped ring ground. Comment4: Representation of S11 and S21 are not correct in the entire manuscript. Response4: As suggested by reviewer S11 AND S21 is written correctly in the manuscript. Commnet5: More explanation on radiation patterns is to be given. Response5: As suggested radiation pattern is explained more and directivity plot is also added to show the radiation intensity orientation. Figure 22 shows the 2-D radiation pattern of antenna for free space and on body operating conditions at 27 GHz. Dipole-like radiation pattern has been observed for free space and broadside radiation pattern is observed for on-body condition in both the E-plane and H-plane. On-body operation, internally reflected and refracted waves superimposed with the antenna radiations and increases the forward radiation of the antenna. Broadside radiation pattern is desirable for the on body devices for making reliable communication link with the external monitoring devices and reducing the absorption of EM waves by body tissue. It is virtually impossible to maintain same orientation with on and off body device due to different human activities. Therefore, broadside radiation pattern helps to overcome orientation mismatch and transmits maximum energy in the direction opposite to body. Simulated and measured results are in close approximation to each other. Both in E-plane and H-plane maximum radiation intensity can be observed at 300 and 3150. 3-D power pattern for the antenna is shown in Figure 23. Maximum free space gain is 2.53 dB and on-body gain is 4.64 dB. As back radiations are reduced in the on-body operations (Figure 22), antenna gain is improved in forward direction. Reflection coefficient of proposed structure is also improved for on-body configuration and justify the antenna on-body performance. Besides this, directivity of antenna is one of the important characteristic for the on-body devices. Figure 24 shows the 3-D directivity plot for the free space and on-body operation and confirming a forward-oriented beam suitable for on body to off body communications. Maximum directivity of 5.06 dBi and 9.5 dBi is achieved for free space and on-body conditions respectively. High directivity shows that antenna radiation intensity is hi Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305524.r002
13 May 2024 Decision Letter - Muhibur Rahman, Editor PONE-D-23-35854R18-port MIMO Antenna at 27 GHz for n261 band and exploring for Body Centric CommunicationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Uthansakul, 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 Jun 27 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, Muhibur Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. Additional Editor Comments: Commnet5. There is a noticeable discrepancy between the simulation and measurement sparameters data. Considering the close proximity of the SMAs in the prototype, have the authors incorporated the SMA model in the simulation? New comment: Incorporate SMA connector and compare with measured data? There are so many unnecessary references that need to be eliminated. Editor is highlighting that please eliminate even if the reviewers recommended. It is completely irrelevant. Like: [2]. Alsharif M. H., Jahid A., Kannadasan R., Kim M.-K., Unleashing the potential of sixth generation (6G) wireless networks in smart energy grid management: a comprehensive review, Energy Rep. 11 (2024) 1376–1398. [3]. Alsharif M.H., Alsharif Y.H., Chaudhry S., Albreem M.A., Jahid A., Hwang E., Artificial intelligence technology for diagnosing COVID-19 cases: a review of substantial issues, Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 24 (2020) 9226–9233. [4]. Alsharif M. H., Hossain M., Jahid A., Khan M., Choi B.J., M Mostafa S., Milestones of wireless communication networks and technology prospect of next generation (6G), Comput. Mater. Continua (CMC) 71 (2022) 4804–4818. [5]. menroodaki, W. Haines, M. Fromandi, and Z. Popovic, ‘‘Non-invasive internal body temperature tracking with near-field microwave radiometry,’’ IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 2535– 2545, May 2018. [15]. A. Iqbal, A. Basir, A. Smida et al., “Electromagnetic bandgap backed millimeter-wave MIMO antenna for wearable applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 111135–111144, 2019. [6]. Alsharif M.H., Comparative analysis of solar-powered base stations for green mobile networks, Energies 10 (2017) 1208. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305524.r003
Revision 2
29 May 2024 Author Response The response to reviewer comments is given in the attached file. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Plos One review response2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305524.r004
2 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Muhibur Rahman, Editor 8-port MIMO Antenna at 27 GHz for n261 band and exploring for Body Centric Communication PONE-D-23-35854R2 Dear Dr. Peerapong Uthansakul, 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, Muhibur Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I have no further concerns. The manuscript can be published in current form however careful modification is needed to make in the format of PLOS one. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305524.r005
Formally Accepted
7 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Muhibur Rahman, Editor PONE-D-23-35854R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Uthansakul, 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 Professor Muhibur Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305524.r006

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 .