| 查看: 2486 | 回复: 5 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
[求助]
Optics letters 这样的审稿意见，有必要重投吗？还是按审稿意见修稿后投OE
|
||
|
Optics letters 返回审稿意见，一个小修，其余两个貌似是给大修，编辑给拒稿，大家帮忙看看是修改重投OE的希望大不大？ Manuscript ID: 。。。。 Type: research article Title:。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。 Author:。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。 Dear Sir/Madam: A decision has been made on the above manuscript. As a co-author, I thought you'd be interested in seeing the referee comments. In view of their recommendations, I cannot accept the manuscript for publication in Optics Letters. If there are no reviewer comments below, please contact the corresponding author to view them. Sincerely, 。。。。。。。。。。。 Topical Editor, Optics Letters PS - If the below reviewer response refers to uploaded comments, you must ask the corresponding author for this information. Only he/she has access to it. --------------------------- Reviewer comments are provided here: Reviewer 1 The authors present and numerically analyze a waveguide based on hybrid surface plasmon polaritons. The structure possesses a higher mode confinement with one order of magnitude smaller normalized mode area as compared to previous designs. Fabrication tolerance is studied and a thorough comparison with previously reported HNWSPPs is presented. While the authors perform an excellent job in presenting their results, the manuscript could benefit from a couple of minor changes outlined below. 1. In paragraph 3 the permittivities of SiO2 and Si are given. It is stated that the “permittivities of SiO2 and Si are assumed to be 2.25 and 12.25.” Where does this assumption come from? It would be beneficial to include references as well as mention the wavelength at which these values hold true (the 1550nm wavelength is defined a little later in the manuscript). 2. In paragraph 4 it may sound better to say “we first investigated” instead of “we firstly investigated.” Reviewer 2 The authors reported a new hybrid plasmonic waveguide structure consisting of two high-index dielectric nanowire located on both sides of a nanowedge-patterned metal film. The normalized mode areas of the proposed structure are improved by one order of magnitude compared to a previous design without the nanowedges on metal film (Ref. 8). Some following questions are needed to be addressed. 1. I recommend the authors consider more realistic rounded tip of the nanowedge with different curvature not sharp tip with zero radius. Moreover, the numerical accuracy is significantly affected by meshing the density of elements. 2. In page 2, the propagation length increases first and then decreases as the tip angle increases from 20 to 160 degrees. The physical meaning of the transition needs to be explained. 3. The structure seems not to be simple to fabricate, the authors need to provide the fabrication processes. 4. In Fig. 3, the authors indicate that “this also shows there is a trade-off between mode confinement and propagation length”. However, Figure 3 shows that smaller refractive index of the cladding is better for both mode area and propagation length. Please correct the statement. 5. In Page 3, please explain the physical meaning of why both the propagation length and the normalized mode area increase as the misalignment distance s of the two tips. 6. For clearly seeing the labels in Figs. 2, 3, and 4, please magnify the sizes of the labels. Reviewer 3 In this paper the authors have proposed a new design of the hybrid plasmonic waveguide by introducing a wedge shape waveguide parallel to a silicon nano wire. On the positive side, I should say that by introducing the wedge shape in the structure there is one order of magnitude enhancement in the effective mode area while the imaginary part of the effective refractive index of the mode remains almost the same compared to ref [8]. This field enhancement could be useful in many ways including integrated lasers. But on the other hand there are some issues with this design which address novelty and the feasibility of fabrication: 1-The designs in ref [6] and [8] are simpler than their counter part in this work. In those references the silicon nano wire will be formed in close proximity of a silver Layer, but in the proposed design the nano wire needs to be fabricated on a sharp wedge shape which could be challenging from fabrication point of view. 2-Usually in sharp edge fabrication if fabrication is not limited with atomic planes then for most of the cases we will end up having a smooth round edge rather than a sharp one. Although in ref [7], the authors have suggested to make the edges sharper to improve the effective area but I believe they didn’t pursue it because it was not physically feasible. Also except the symmetry and the sharp edge I don’t see any differences between this work and ref [7]. Therefore I can conclude that this work sets an ideal upper limit for what has been done in ref [7] but physically one might get the results close to what has been achieved in ref [7] in best conditions. Therefore I should say that this work is an incremental version of ref [7] and does not meet the novelty requirements of a separate manuscript. 3-In ref[7] and figure 2 of this work the authors have shown that there is a maximum in propagation length of the waveguide at an angle around 100 degrees, but they haven’t explained the reason behind it, in other words what are the dominant mechanisms behind the drop in the propagation length above and below a specific angle. (What I mean is a qualitative explanation and possible analysis on the dominant effects controlling the propagation length). This might be a helpful analysis to improve the novelty of this work. 4-All over the manuscript microns have been shown with um which is less common and usually the symbols are preferred (μm). 5-Please include more points in your simulation in figure 3 in order to give a better picture of the trend and slope of the changes. With 2 points in the middle the reader can only see the tradeoff between propagation length and the effective area and it is not obvious how the slopes change. This is extremely important if the reader wants to design the structure. 6-Since metals show different behaviors at different wavelengths, therefore another option for improving the novelty of this work is to do the simulations at other wavelengths (namely in the 500-700 nm region far from 1550nm) or even do a broadband simulation to observe the behavior of the mode. Sometimes in this type of broadband analysis there are some interesting exceptional peaks. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
0856调剂，是学校就去
已经有7人回复
-
0817 化学工程 299分求调剂 有科研经历 有二区文章
已经有14人回复
-
申博26年
已经有3人回复
-
一志愿吉林大学材料学硕321求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
0703化学调剂 ，六级已过，有科研经历
已经有12人回复
-
294求调剂材料与化工专硕
已经有13人回复
-
288求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
307求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
一志愿南京理工大学085701资源与环境302分求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
288求调剂，一志愿华南理工大学071005
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 这样的审稿意见，我是修改再投还是换杂志呢？请大家评评
已经有7人回复
- 责任编辑给了这样的审稿意见回信，还有希望吗？
已经有7人回复
- 这样的审稿意见如何回复
已经有5人回复
- Optics Letter 返回审稿意见，请大家支招，如何处理？多谢！
已经有14人回复
- 重新投稿文章需不需要把上次审稿人的意见以及对应的修改上传？
已经有6人回复
- 文章审稿意见---审稿人是让我作修改还是夸我做得好呢？？
已经有17人回复
- Optics Letters返回两个审稿意见，一个不用修改直接接收，一个大改，编辑让重投。。
已经有23人回复
- Optics Letters投稿一周收到编辑回信怎么只有一个审稿人的意见
已经有7人回复
- 关于optics and laser technology 审稿意见的问题
已经有13人回复
- 这样的审稿意见可以申诉吗？
已经有20人回复
- 投了篇small，审稿意见如下，修改后重投有希望吗？
已经有15人回复
- 有谁知道Optics Letters的审稿政策（审稿人多久不回复就换审稿人？）
已经有16人回复
- OE（optics express）这样的审稿意见还有改的必要吗？
已经有23人回复
- 请问这样的审稿意见修改后录用的几率大吗
已经有5人回复
- 投Applied Optics返回审稿意见，恳请各位看看给点意见
已经有11人回复
- 大家讨论一下 审稿人 几天就返回审稿意见 该意见是好还是坏？？
已经有8人回复
- 一个月前投的PTL，这样的审稿意见中的机会大么？
已经有31人回复
- IEEE 投稿后只返回一个专家的审稿意见，其它6个审稿人都拒审，文章还有希望吗？
已经有16人回复
- RSC的杂志，拒稿重投（reject and resubmssion）还需要回复审稿人意见吗？
已经有6人回复
- PRB这样的审稿意见算是大修还是小修？
已经有6人回复
- chinese optics letters要审稿费吗
已经有5人回复
- 大家帮忙看这样的审稿意见还有必要改吗，还是改投别的期刊呀！
已经有23人回复
- 我给国外期刊文章的审稿结果和审稿意见
已经有178人回复
qqppaa1
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 110 (高中生)
- 金币: 5390.4
- 散金: 1814
- 红花: 16
- 帖子: 1993
- 在线: 842.8小时
- 虫号: 1129626
- 注册: 2010-10-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 光学
5楼2013-11-11 09:06:19
successfulsbl
木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 2006 (讲师)
- 金币: 15721.6
- 红花: 45
- 帖子: 3388
- 在线: 851.9小时
- 虫号: 286119
- 注册: 2006-10-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 有机分子功能材料化学
2楼2013-11-11 05:31:44
3楼2013-11-11 06:10:00
4楼2013-11-11 08:04:05
