投稿审了一个多月被拒了，这个审稿意见看着不是很好啊。上一次投OL，第一被拒但是编辑建议修改重投，二稿就录了。这一次只说不能接收，大家看看还可以修改重投么？
Manuscript ID: XXX    Type: letter
Title: XXX
Author: XXX; XXX

Dear Dr. XXX:

We are returning the comments of the reviewers.  In view of their recommendations, I cannot accept your manuscript for publication in Optics Letters.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your contribution.  We regret that it was not possible for us to send you a more favorable report.

Sincerely,
Antonella Bogoni
Topical Editor, Optics Letters

---------------------------
Reviewer 1:
In this paper the authors introduce a beam deflector and optical coupler based on an array of slits with varying depths on a metal film. In my opinion, this letter should not be accepted in its current form, and major revisions are required before it could be considered for publication. The major issue is the low quality of presentation. More specifically:

1. The quality of English language usage throughout the paper should be improved. There are several typos throughout the paper. Some examples: “efficient refractive index”, “defection angle”, “irradiates the planet”, “while it can have further promotion to cut some calculation steps”, “two opposite progresses”, “cancelled together”, “will have an inverse proportion”, “deflection angel”, “the structure is high efficient”.

2. What are the units on the vertical axis of Figure 3?

3. It is not clear what Figure 4 shows and what its purpose is. What is the incident source? How are transmission and reflection defined in this figure? What are their units? There will be strong reflection at the lower boundary of the slit, so it is not clear what the point is of measuring transmission in the short-circuited slit. If the metal is lossless, the transmission will be zero.

4. The parameters of the simulated structures should be provided in the captions of all figures to avoid any confusion. As an example Figures 2(b) and 5 both show results for deflection angle of 60 degrees for two different structures. The geometrical parameters of these structures should be included in the corresponding figure captions.

5. Figure 7: The text in both colorbars is impossible to read. In addition, it is not clear why both Figures 7(a) and 7(b) are needed.

6. Figure 8: How are the coupling ratio and reflection defined?


Reviewer 2:
In this work, the authors present two plasmonic grating-based devices with high performance: a beam deflector and a waveguide coupler. A numerical simulation is used to single out the role of the different structure parameters (width and depth of the grooves) and tune them in order to optimize the overall device performance (reflectivity or coupling efficiency).  
On one hand, the method is clear and easily understandable by anybody with a basic optics background. On the other hand, the work is very focused on optimizing the design parameters of an existing device, and, most important, lacks of any experimental validation. So, with no experimental evidence and no insight in the simulation details, it is hard to comment on whether the claimed numbers are more than “scientifically sound”.
Regarding the manuscript organization, my only remark is that the coupling device is introduced very abruptly after fig.5, and the reader might not realize that a different device is being described rather than an additional optimization step for the deflector. Also, there is a quite large number of funny typos, like “deflection angel”, “irradiates the planet”, “TM model” or “the inside silt”.
Based on these considerations, it is quite hard to me to give a decisive recomendation for this work. I would surely have no doubts if one of the described devices had been actually manufactured and tested. As it is, i would probably submit the manuscript to a more application-oriented optics journal.  

Reviewer 3:
The authors address the new beam deflector and optical coupler structure based on plasmonic nano-slit. The later part of article proposed the new optical coupler. This optical coupler is attractive for the high efficiency and simple structure. But concrete technical usages or applications are proposed in few examples. The main part of the article is to discuss the structure of the deflector. It applies the spatially variable depth slit whose similar structure has already been proposed by Y.Zhao et al, OE, 18, 23458. Even though present article discusses reflection type, the present design looks an incremental work. If the authors stress this part, some experimental evidences would be expected. From these reasons I cannot recommend this paper for the publications in Optics Letters by luck of enough novelty or evidences required by general readers in the journal.

Questions and Comments

1.      Is it able to define the “total reflection” in the region whose scale is comparable to that of the optical wavelength?
2.      What is the concrete usage or other application for the new optical coupler?
Is it applicable for the solar cell device such discussed in K. Takatori et. al, J. Phys. D,49, 185106?
3.      How do you measure the 80.73% coupling efficiency experimentally?
4.      Please insert unit of k in figure 3 and scale in figure 5 or 7. 返回小木虫查看更多