A compact design of MIMO patch antenna with high gain and symmetrical radiation pattern

Phuong Kim-Thi; Thang Nguyen-Van; Dat Nguyen-Tien; Tung Bui-Thanh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325282

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 24, 2025
17 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Sachin Kumar, Editor PONE-D-25-15830A Compact Design of MIMO Patch Antenna with High Gain and Symmetrical Radiation PatternPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kim, 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 01 2025 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, Sachin Kumar, Ph.D. 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. 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, we expect all author-generated code to 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. Additional Editor Comments: The authors must carefully respond to the reviewers' comments and submit the revised manuscript for further consideration. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: In this paper, the authors have presented the design of a compact multiple-input multiple-output antenna. The reflection coefficient of the antenna confirms the suitability of the proposed antenna for sub-6 GHz multiple-input multiple-output wireless systems. Following are the suggestions to the authors: 1. In the abstract, the abbreviation MIMO should be defined. All the abbreviations used first time in the paper should be defined. 2. Section numbering is missing. 3. In the introduction, some more recent literature related to sub-6GHz multiple-input multiple-output antennas should be included. 4. At the end of the introduction section, the structure of the paper should be given. 5. The dimensions of the antenna should be summarized in a table. 6. In Table 1, the unit of the dimension should be corrected as λ^3. 7. Appropriate tense should be used in conclusion, please rephrase first sentence of this section. 8. If not a journal requirement, please included figures within the main paper. 9. Include some diversity parameters such as diversity gain, envelope correlation coefficient etc. 10. As mentioned above, please include some more recent papers related to the sub-6 GHz multiple-input multiple-output antennas such as ‘Compact Sub 6 GHz Dual Band Twelve-Element MIMO Antenna for 5G Metal-Rimmed Smartphone Applications’, ‘Metasurface Superstrate based MIMO Patch Antennas with Reduced Mutual Coupling for 5G Communications’, ‘A closely spaced two-port MIMO antenna with a radiation null for out-of-band suppressions for 5G Sub-6 GHz applications’ etc. 11. The details of the reference [26] are incomplete. Reviewer #2: 1. The authors have presented a good research analysis, for the power divider network provide some surface current analysis. 2. How isolation is achieved must be discussed briefly. 3. Provide some information on the radiation pattern with back lobe suppression characteristics. 4. Highlight some novelty of the proposed design. 5. For the array antenna design how did the authors reduce side lobes. ****** 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: Yes: Asutosh mohanty ******** [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.0325282.r001
Revision 1
25 Apr 2025 Author Response Submission ID: PONE-D-25-15830 Original Article Title: “A Compact Design of MIMO Patch Antenna with High Gain and Symmetrical Radiation Pattern” 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: In this paper, the authors have presented the design of a compact multiple-input multiple-output antenna. The reflection coefficient of the antenna confirms the suitability of the proposed antenna for sub-6 GHz multiple-input multiple-output wireless systems. Following are the suggestions to the authors: Concern # 1: In the abstract, the abbreviation MIMO should be defined. All the abbreviations used first time in the paper should be defined. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The abbreviation MIMO is defined in Abstract of the revised manuscript. Concern # 2: Section numbering is missing. Author response: The Section number is missing due to the template of the PLoS One journal. Concern # 3: In the introduction, some more recent literature related to sub-6GHz multiple-input multiple-output antennas should be included. Author response: Agreed. Author action: Several recent published papers related to sub-6 GHz MIMO antenna are added to the revised manuscript as ref [9, 10, 15]. Concern # 4: At the end of the introduction section, the structure of the paper should be given. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The structure of the paper is added at the end of the Introduction Section in the revised manuscript. Concern # 5: The dimensions of the antenna should be summarized in a table. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The dimensions of the antenna are summarized in Table 1 of the revised manuscript. Concern # 6: In Table 1, the unit of the dimension should be corrected as λ^3. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The unit of the dimension is corrected in the revised manuscript. Concern # 7: Appropriate tense should be used in conclusion, please rephrase first sentence of this section. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The first sentence in the Conclusion is rephrased in the revised manuscript. Concern # 8: If not a journal requirement, please included figures within the main paper. Author response: The authors agree with the Reviewer that including figures within the main paper is better. However, according to the journal template, it is not allowed in this stage. Concern # 9: Include some diversity parameters such as diversity gain, envelope correlation coefficient etc. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The ECC and DG of the 2-port MIMO antenna have been included in the revised manuscript as Fig. 10. Concern # 10: As mentioned above, please include some more recent papers related to the sub-6 GHz multiple-input multiple-output antennas such as ‘Compact Sub 6 GHz Dual Band Twelve-Element MIMO Antenna for 5G Metal-Rimmed Smartphone Applications’, ‘Metasurface Superstrate based MIMO Patch Antennas with Reduced Mutual Coupling for 5G Communications’, ‘A closely spaced two-port MIMO antenna with a radiation null for out-of-band suppressions for 5G Sub-6 GHz applications’ etc. Author response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable suggested references. Author action: The suggested references are included in the revised manuscript as refs [9, 10, 15]. Concern # 11: The details of the reference [26] are incomplete. Author response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for pointing out the authors’ mistake. Author action: The details of ref [26] are corrected in the revised manuscript. Reviewer 2: Concern # 1: The authors have presented a good research analysis, for the power divider network provide some surface current analysis. Author response: In accordance with the Reviewer comment, the surface current on the T-divider is shown in Fig. 1R. As shown, the current is equally distributed to the outputs of the divider. This makes sure that the radiating elements are excited with equal magnitude and phase. This is the common operation of the T-divider and thus, the authors do not include this figure in the manuscript for brevity. Fig. 1R. Simulated current distribution at 4.8 GHz on the divider. Concern # 2: How isolation is achieved must be discussed briefly. Author response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for the constructive comment. The principle for high isolation of the proposed design is based on two orthogonal linear polarizations. As seen in Fig. 5, F-1 and F-3 will be excited for Port-1 operation. The coupling will occur between these feeding positions to the others, F-2 and F-4. However, the positions of F-2 and F-4 are orthogonal to F-1 and F-3. Consequently, high isolation will be obtained, as demonstrated in Section “Design a dual-polarized antenna”. Author action: A brief discussion about the isolation of 2-port MIMO is added to Paragraph 1, Subsection “2-port MIMO”, Section “MIMO configurations” of the revised manuscript. Concern # 3: Provide some information on the radiation pattern with back lobe suppression characteristics. Author response: Agreed. Author action: Further discussion is added to Paragraph 3, Subsection “2-port MIMO”, Section “MIMO configurations” of the revised manuscript. Concern # 4: Highlight some novelty of the proposed design. Author response: Agreed. Author action: The novelty of the proposed design is emphasized in Paragraph 4, Section “Introduction” of the revised manuscript. Concern # 5: For the array antenna design how did the authors reduce side lobes. Author response: For the MIMO array, the side lobes can be reduced by controlling excitation magnitudes and/or phases. This task requires complicated feeding networks as they distribute power and phase to each antenna element independently. In this paper, the authors just presented a MIMO antenna with high isolation and high gain operation, rather than proposing the feeding network. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325282.r002
30 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Sachin Kumar, Editor PONE-D-25-15830R1A Compact Design of MIMO Patch Antenna with High Gain and Symmetrical Radiation PatternPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kim, 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 14 2025 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, Sachin Kumar, Ph.D. 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: The reviewers are requested to change the 'S-parameter' to 'Diversity Gain' on the right vertical axis in Fig. 10. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: Authors have addressed the comments in the revised paper. In the Fig 10 of the revised manuscript, please correct ‘S-parameter’ as ‘Diversity Gain’ on the right vertical axis. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. 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: Yes: Asutosh mohanty ******** [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.0325282.r003
Revision 2
1 May 2025 Author Response Submission ID: PONE-D-15830R1 Original Article Title: “A Compact Design of MIMO Patch Antenna with High Gain and Symmetrical Radiation Pattern” 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: Concern # 1: Authors have addressed the comments in the revised paper. In Fig 10 of the revised manuscript, please correct ‘S-parameter’ as ‘Diversity Gain’ on the right vertical axis. Author response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for pointing out our mistake. Author action: Fig. 10 is corrected in the revised manuscript. 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. Author response: The authors have thoroughly checked the references. All references are completed and corrected. No retracted references are cited in the paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325282.r004
12 May 2025 Decision Letter - Sachin Kumar, Editor A Compact Design of MIMO Patch Antenna with High Gain and Symmetrical Radiation Pattern PONE-D-25-15830R2 Dear Dr. Kim, 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, Sachin Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325282.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sachin Kumar, Editor PONE-D-25-15830R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kim-Thi, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Sachin Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325282.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 .