大家好，最近有一篇卫星导航天线方面的论文有了审稿结果。其中一位审稿人的意见比较难回复，想咨询一下各位大侠的意见。
下面是这位审稿人的意见
This is a well written paper on the topic of multi-GNSS patch antennas where the authors make use of a double-sided metasurface to increase the antenna’s axial ratio bandwidth. With that, the patch antenna can receive signals from all ranges of frequencies transmitted by the four GNSSs, 1) GPS, 2) GLONASS, 3) BeiDou and 4) Galileo.  The paper is organised well and easy to follow. I have a few remarks that the authors may consider in the revision:
(1) While discussions on the 4 GNSSs are given, no mention is made regarding the other two Regional Navigation Satellite Systems (RNSS), namely, 1) the Japanese QZSS and 2) the Indian NAVIC (IRNSS). Can the proposed patch antenna receive signals from these types of satellites as well?
(2) Positioning and navigation users are very much concerned about the presence of ‘multipath’ in their observed GNSS signals. How does the proposed antenna take care of multipath? Can the impact of multipath be mitigated(减轻) by using such patch antennas?  
(3) Numerical results: it would be good, next to Figures 3-11, to include a discussion on ‘multipath’ as well as GNSS-derived positioning solutions. This aspect is missing in the paper.

其中第(2),(3)点的回复比较困难，我翻译成中文大概是这样的
(2) 对所设计的卫星导航天线的抗多径效应进行说明，该天线能否减小多径效应？
思考：我做的GNSS导航天线，做到了轴比宽频带和小型化，但是没有讨论抗多径效应。这个抗多径要做就麻烦了，可能天线都要变，也不一定能做出来。而以往类似的贴片形式的宽频带导航天线也很少讨论多径效应。
(3) 加入关于“多径”以及来自GNSS的定位解决方案的讨论会很好。 这篇文章缺少这方面的内容。
思考：审稿人要求加入一个GNSS导航系统解决方案？这个超出了天线范畴，我也不是做的卫星导航系统，只是研究其中的天线单元。这个如何回复呢

大家有没有遇到过类似的超出论文内容，或者难以做到的审稿意见呢？用什么处理方法来回复审稿意见比较合适？
谢谢大家！ 返回小木虫查看更多