Optimization and Design of Passive Link with Single Channel 25 Gbps Based on High-Speed Backplane

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aim is optimization and design of passive link with single-channel 25Gbps based on the high-speed backplane. The study needs relevant ameliorations in text editing and methods (see my comments below).

1. Abstract - consider revising the background to reflect the specific goal of this paper. The abstract should include information about background, aim, methods, and results.

2. Introduction:
The introduction should include a description of the novelty/impact of this study compared to the existing literature. How does this study differ from the other studies, and what new useful information does it offer? 

3. Methods:
- Fig.1 should be of higher quality.
- Line 63. It should be a comma instead of a dot “via and transmission line. the strip coplanar”.
- The structure of the manuscript is very confusing. The information in Methods section and Results section are mixed. It is hard to read the manuscript.
- Fig.4 should be moved to the Results section.
- Fig.6 should be moved to the Results section.
- Fig.9 should be moved to the Results section.
- Fig.14 should be moved to the Methods section.

4. The discussion doesn’t provide much useful information – it is mainly a recount of the methods and findings of the study. Discussion should focus on innovations of the present study. Your discussion section should be constructed as follows:
- rephrase the question followed by the answer that was reached from the results;
- describe how the data support the answers to the questions;
- compare to other studies;
- present the strengths and limitations;
- combine the information in the previous paragraphs into a coherent whole within the framework of the hypotheses.

5. Make a conjecture of what this study suggests in a broader scope in the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Thanks for your efforts in this article, the author has modified the article according to the suggestions, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. What is the novelty of the paper?
2. In line 345, the authors used the parameters of reference plane are : VSL = 20mil, w=40mil, VVL= 30mil, and VD =12 mil. Why did the authors use those parameters? Can we use parametes of reference plane VSL=30mil, w=50mil, VVL=40 mil and VD =13mil? It is better the authors use different parameters of reference plane and compare the results between two parameters of reference plane.
3. In line 382, the authors wrote discussion. It is better the authors write conclusion. 
4. What is the future work the paper?

Author Response

Thanks for your efforts in this article, the author has modified the article according to the suggestions, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors propose the modeling method of some important components in the backplane passive link, including transmission line, reference plane, and vias, and give the optimized parameters for them to achieve a reduced return loss and insertion loss.

Here are some suggestions for the authors:

In the introduction and background part, it would be better to cite some previous work on modeling and analysis of passive link and point out their drawbacks, so that the audience can have better understand of what improvement the authors have made compared to existing study.

The paper has plenty of good figures, but the authors need to work on the description of the figures in the manuscript. It would be better to elaborate more on some details of the figures instead of always having just one sentence “xxx is shown in Figure x” or “Figure x shows xxx”.

Some English mistakes are noticed. Please proofread the paper and correct them.

Author Response

Thanks for your efforts in this article, the author has modified the article according to the suggestions, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All corrections have been provided. No more requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors had responded and answered my question.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript has reflected all my previous suggestions to the authors. I'm satisfied with the updates and accept the paper in its present form.