一. 期刊名：Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters，
投稿文章：Solenoid Inductors ...
二. 期刊名：IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies
投稿文章：Internal Geometry ...
By using LTCC technology, the authors fabricated the low profile power inductor to improve the light load efficiency of the DC-DC converter. The effects of geometry variation, such as conductor width, core thickness, conductor thickness, number of parallel conductors, on the light load efficiency of the converter were also studied, which will be a good guidance for others to design the similar inductors. What’s more, it is significant that the authors improved the light load efficiency by 30% by decreasing the conductor width of the inductor.
However, the work would be excellent if some mistakes were revised and some explanations were given.
(1) In part two, the authors assume that there is magnetic isolation between the parallel conductors. I can’t find any necessary explanation. Is it because of the big spacing between the conductors or substrate aspect or other aspects?
(2) In Fig.13, the 6L5a line decrease obviously after 12A, quite different from other five lines. Is the conductor width 5mm critical size? Why not provide the “Efficiency” result of conductor width 6mm?
(3) In Fig.14, for the conductor width w=2mm, given the output current, the difference value between two lines is much bigger than that of w=3mm in Fig.16. How to explain this phenomenon.
(4) There are some spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes in the manuscript. For example, in Eq.(1), the right bracket is missed. In “ACKNOWLEDGMENT”, the quotation mark is unwanted. In reference 8, “Vol.3” should be “Vol.30”. Generally, the sole Arabic number is not used as the initial character in a sentence.
三 期刊名：Microelectronic Engineering
投稿文章：On-chip embedded ...
This paper presents a novel process for concave-suspended high-performance toroidal inductors and transformers, which are highly demanded in radio-frequency integrated circuits (RF ICs). The fabrication technology is interesting and the RFperformance of the toroidal structures is satisfactory. The introduction, in a clear and understandable fashion, describes the advantages of toroidal structures (inductors and transformers) over straight solenoid structures, such as much little eddy currents and occupying less area.
However, in this paper, the theory to explain why the embedded close-loop structures have high and different performance needs to be improved. In general, the Q-factor of the micromachined inductors can be expressed as 
where LS is the series inductance of the inductor, RS is the series resistance of the metallization and a frequency dependent term to model skin effect, eddy current effect and other high frequency effects of the inductor, CS is the total parasitic(stray) capacitance. The first factor in Eq.(1) is the intrinsic quality factor of the overall inductance. The middle factor models the substrate loss in the substrate. The final factor models the self-resonance loss due to the overall parasitic capacitances.
In fact, as pointed out in Part Three (Testing Results), the close-loop and air-core can effectively lower the eddy currents and suspending gap over 40 microns can effectively depress the substrate losses. Compared with Fig.8 (a) and Fig.8 (b), except for the turn number, the geometrical parameters per turn of the two toroidal inductors are equal or similar, but the Q-factors are similar below 3GHz and distinguish obviously over 3GHz. Since eddy currents and substrate losses are eliminated, how to explain that the larger number of the square-shaped close-loop solenoid inductor is, the lower the Q-factor is? Is it due to the different average pitch between the adjacent turns, the conductor losses, the parasitic capacitance, or other factors? It is better to give the series resistance and parasitic capacitance versus frequency. The pitch between adjacent turns indeed affects the mutual inductance, i.e., the smaller the pitch is, the larger the mutual inductance and the series inductance is, and vice versa, but we can’t draw a conclusion that “the smaller the pitch is, the better the performance of the inductor or the transformer is”, because the smaller the pitch is, the larger the parasitic capacitance is. Larger parasitic capacitance would decrease the Q-factor . It is strongly recommend expanding the theory to explain the difference of Q-factors versus frequency in Fig.8 (a) and Fig.8 (b).
Because the joints serve as anchors to the frame for robustly suspending the solenoid, so the joints play important roles in the structures. “The fabricated toroidal structures can withstand violent mechanical vibration and thermal strain…”, as mentioned at the beginning of Part Two (Fabrication), but where is the proof? The mechanical stability and the shocking experiment of the concave-suspended straight solenoid inductor have been demonstrated by the authors in an earlier paper .
As for the mutual reactive coupling factor k of the transformer, it is necessary to bring forward the significance of k and essential explain, not only simply listed the equation and the pictures of testing results.
The text contains some spelling mistakes, such as “Agilent-HFSS” and “…for a certain inductance values”. “in CMOS compatible silicon wafers”, “on CMOS-compatible silicon wafers”, and “in a 450μm-thick 4-inch silicon substrate”, what is the right preposition? Some sentences require revisions to avoid confusion by the readers. For example, “The formed 4.92nH and 8.48nH toroidal inductors on a low-resistivity silicon substrate are tested with the peak Q of 25.7 and 17.8, while the self-resonant frequencies are 17.3GHz and 7.4GHz, respectively.”
The following are personal questions. How to choose the geometrical parameters before fabrication? According to HFSS simulation, experiences, or synthetical consideration? In fact, it is important for designers to predict the performance of the structures before they carry out their experiments. Maybe it is one part of the authors’ future work.
Conclusion: Accept with major revision
 L. Gu, X.X. Li, Concave-suspended high Q solenoid inductors with an RFIC-compatible bulk
miceomachining technology, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 2007, 54: 882-885.
四 期刊名：Journal of Micromechnics and Microengineering
投稿文章：On The Nonlinear-Flexural...
This paper presents the primary resonance of the microcantilever sensors (MCS) under the external exciting without internal resonance. The model for the MCS is based on the nonlinear Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and the first mode of the excited MCS is considered. These will be helpful in some degree for the researchers to study the nonlinear dynamics of the flexible MCS. However, the work in this paper is needed to be improved and the decision for this paper is “reject”.
1. The most contents in this paper are similar to the published paper  written by themselves, especially the Model Formulation, the Reduced-order Modeling and the measured results of the piezoelectrically-excited sensor (ZnO), though the model formulation of the base-excited MCS and the frequency response curves of the piezoelectrically-excited sensor at different quality factors are added by the authors.
2. In the last paragraph of “Introduction”, what does the “material nonlinearities” mean? Understanding this meaning is very important in this paper because it is quadratic nonlinearities, which result the first vibration mode exhibiting a softening-type behavior. As far as I know, the rotation of the flexible beams can induce the quadratic nonlinear term. When the rotation of the flexible beam is in large range, the rotation can change the nonlinear response type. If the “material nonlinearities” is not the rotation term, the flexible beams under rotation, parametric excitation, external excitation should be synthetically concerned with.
3. Because of the nonlinear quadratic term and the cubic term, the internal resonance between two modals (such as 2:1 or 3:1) of the flexible beam is likely to appear. In this paper, the authors did not provide the second modal frequency or the ratio of the first and the second modal frequencies of the flexible beams. If the internal resonance exists, the authors should reconsider the primary resonance with the internal resonance in their future work.
4. In the first paragraphs of “6.1.” and “6.2.”, from Equation (20) and the nonlinear frequency-response curves of figures, “Ω=-0.02ω1” seems to be “σ=-0.02ω1”.
 Seyed Nima Mahmoodi, Nader Jalili, and Mohammed F. Daqaq, Modeling, Nonlinear Dynamics, and Identification of a Piezoelectrically Actuated Microcantilever Sensor, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2008, 13(1): 58-65.
[ Last edited by dmfang on 2009-2-22 at 20:50 ]