Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Comments from 1st reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly: Yes
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) Yes
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications Yes
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right Yes
Other comments: It will be useful to have some simulated 3D radiation patterns so readers can find out which modes the antenna are operating at.

Comments from 2nd reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly No
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) No
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications No
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right No
Other comments: Readability and English needs to be checked before submission. Although the work is quite interesting; the paper is bad written. The contribution of the paper in the antennas design aspect is not in a satisfactory level.