Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2025
Decision Letter - Neng Ye, Editor

Micromachined mmWave 28.0/38.0 GHz MIMO Antenna Loaded with Novel Frequency Selective Surface for Gain Enhancement and SAR Analysis for Future Wireless Applications

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ali,

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 13 2026 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.

  • A 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,

Neng Ye

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.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

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.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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:

Thanks for your submitting. As mentioned by the reviewers ,there's still some problems needed to be fixed in your paper.I noticed that the main issues are the insufficient introduction to the current research status, as well as the inadequate explanation of technical details and advantages. Please make revisions to meet the publication standards.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors present the work titled "Micromachined mmWave 28.0/38.0 GHz MIMO Antenna Loaded with Frequency Selective Surface for Gain Enhancement and SAR Analysis for Future Wireless Applications." The concept is promising and relevant; however, I have the following suggestions for improvement:

Title Revision: Please remove the word "novel" from the title regarding the FSS, as these unit cells are already well-studied in the literature.

Introduction: The contributions listed in the introduction are currently too long. Please condense this section to a maximum of four key contributions.

Literature Review: The authors should expand the discussion on recently published works regarding mmWave antennas with FSS reflectors. The following articles are recommended to add value to the introduction:

a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hspr.2025.08.004

b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10762-025-01079-z

c. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9243301

Technical Data: Please provide the reflection phase characteristics of the proposed FSS unit cell.

Reviewer #2: This paper proposes a dual-band four-port millimeter-wave MIMO antenna that achieves significant gain enhancement and systematically evaluates key MIMO performance metrics. The manuscript is well structured, the design procedure is clearly presented, and the parametric analysis is relatively comprehensive. However, the following issues should be addressed.

1. In the Introduction, the related literature is mainly classified based on research topics. It is recommended that the authors further compare these works by discussing their respective advantages and limitations, so as to more clearly highlight the novelty and contributions of this paper.

2. In Section 5, the description of the micro-machining process is rather vague. More details regarding the specific fabrication methods and key process parameters should be provided. In addition, please ensure consistency in the terminology, and clarify whether “micro-machined” should be written with or without a hyphen.

3. The SAR analysis is relatively brief. The authors should explicitly specify the input power level used in the SAR simulations and clarify whether the SAR results are normalized. Otherwise, the reported SAR values cannot be fairly compared with those in other studies.

4. This paper designs a high-isolation, high-gain MIMO antenna, which effectively reduces inter-user interference. It is suggested that the authors strengthen the theoretical foundation supporting this conclusion by citing relevant works, such as “Achieving Positive Rate of Covert Communications Covered by Randomly Activated Overt Users” and “Energy Efficiency of Massive Random Access in MIMO Quasi-Static Rayleigh Fading Channels With Finite Blocklength”, to make the claims more convincing.

5. Please pay more attention to writing conventions and consistency. For example, the reference citation format is inconsistent in the Introduction, where references [1] and [3] are used differently. In addition, some abbreviations (e.g., ECC) are not defined when they first appear in the text.

**********

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Revision 1

Additional Editor Comments:

Thanks for your submitting. As mentioned by the reviewers, there's still some problems needed to be fixed in your paper. I noticed that the main issues are the insufficient introduction to the current research status, as well as the inadequate explanation of technical details and advantages. Please make revisions to meet the publication standards.

Authors are thankful to editor for giving the opportunity to revise the manuscript titled “Micromachined mmWave 28.0/38.0 GHz MIMO Antenna Loaded with Novel Frequency Selective Surface for Gain Enhancement and SAR Analysis for Future Wireless Applications,”.

Also, we are giving point-to-point for the queries raised by the reviewer(s).

______________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #1: The authors present the work titled "Micromachined mmWave 28.0/38.0 GHz MIMO Antenna Loaded with Frequency Selective Surface for Gain Enhancement and SAR Analysis for Future Wireless Applications." The concept is promising and relevant; however, I have the following suggestions for improvement:

______________________________________________________________________________

Title Revision: Please remove the word "novel" from the title regarding the FSS, as these unit cells are already well-studied in the literature.

Response: Authors are thankful to reviewer for removal of word “novel”. As per your suggestions, the above said word has been removed from the title of the revised manuscript.

______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction: The contributions listed in the introduction are currently too long. Please condense this section to a maximum of four key contributions.

Response: Authors have condensed the introduction section as suggested by the reviewer with focusing maximum of four key contributions.

______________________________________________________________________________

Literature Review: The authors should expand the discussion on recently published works regarding mmWave antennas with FSS reflectors. The following articles are recommended to add value to the introduction:

a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hspr.2025.08.004

b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10762-025-01079-z

c. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9243301

Response: Authors are thankful to reviewer for suggesting the latest state-of-the-art research articles. We have included the above said research articles and also highlighted the same in revised manuscript with updating in introduction.

______________________________________________________________________________

Technical Data: Please provide the reflection phase characteristics of the proposed FSS unit cell.

Response: Authors are thankful to reviewer for addressing the concern related to reflection phase characteristics. The analysis of reflection phase characteristics versus frequency is added in the revised manuscript as Figure 4(d).

______________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #2: This paper proposes a dual-band four-port millimeter-wave MIMO antenna that achieves significant gain enhancement and systematically evaluates key MIMO performance metrics. The manuscript is well structured, the design procedure is clearly presented, and the parametric analysis is relatively comprehensive. However, the following issues should be addressed.

______________________________________________________________________________

1. In the Introduction, the related literature is mainly classified based on research topics. It is recommended that the authors further compare these works by discussing their respective advantages and limitations, so as to more clearly highlight the novelty and contributions of this paper.

Response: Authors are thankful to reviewer for raising the concerns over introduction. The introduction has been modified as per the suggestions and same has been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

______________________________________________________________________________

2. In Section 5, the description of the micro-machining process is rather vague. More details regarding the specific fabrication methods and key process parameters should be provided. In addition, please ensure consistency in the terminology, and clarify whether “micro-machined” should be written with or without a hyphen.

Response: Authors are thankful for the description of micromachining antenna discussed in Section 5. The features of the micromachining antenna is explained in the revised manuscript and same has been highlighted. Also, the hypen is removed and “micromchined” word is used in the entire manuscript.

_____________________________________________________________________________

3. The SAR analysis is relatively brief. The authors should explicitly specify the input power level used in the SAR simulations and clarify whether the SAR results are normalized. Otherwise, the reported SAR values cannot be fairly compared with those in other studies.

Response: Authors are again thankful for addressing the concerning the power input in calculation of SAR. In this study of mmWave loaded with FSS, the SAR values at 28.0 GHz and 38.0 GHz are calculated for power input of 50 mW & 500 mW which is standard for SAR calculated by EM simulator. The value of input power is also mentioned in the revised manuscript and same has been highlighted. Also, Table 4 and Table 5 are added for more insight on SAR calculations

______________________________________________________________________________

4. This paper designs a high-isolation, high-gain MIMO antenna, which effectively reduces inter-user interference. It is suggested that the authors strengthen the theoretical foundation supporting this conclusion by citing relevant works, such as “Achieving Positive Rate of Covert Communications Covered by Randomly Activated Overt Users” and “Energy Efficiency of Massive Random Access in MIMO Quasi-Static Rayleigh Fading Channels With Finite Blocklength”, to make the claims more convincing.

Response: Authors are thankful to reviewer for suggesting the quality papers addressing the covert communication and Rayleigh Fading Channels. The suggested research papers has been added in the revised manuscript and same has been highlighted.

______________________________________________________________________________

5. Please pay more attention to writing conventions and consistency. For example, the reference citation format is inconsistent in the Introduction, where references [1] and [3] are used differently. In addition, some abbreviations (e.g., ECC) are not defined when they first appear in the text.

Response: Authors are thankful to reviewer for raising the concerns related to conventions. All the conventions are well defined in the revised manuscript and same has been highlighted.

______________________________________________________________________________

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer Response.docx
Decision Letter - Neng Ye, Editor

Micromachined mmWave 28.0/38.0 GHz MIMO Antenna Loaded with Frequency Selective Surface for Gain Enhancement and SAR Analysis for Future Wireless Applications

PONE-D-25-52779R1

Dear Dr. Ali,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Neng Ye

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have addressed all the comments. I'm OK with this version.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have revised the comments carefully. The paper can be accepted in its current form…….…….

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all comments, and I am satisfied with this revised version.

**********

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: Yes: Ahmed Jamal Abdullah Al-Gburi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Neng Ye, Editor

PONE-D-25-52779R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ali,

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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Neng Ye

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 .