Review Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Publish in Minor, Required Changes (as noted in the Comments section. This rating may
not be assigned for Sensors Letters.)

Comments:
In the abstract, the values for results are giving quantitively.  
Reference paper to previous work is sufficiently given. 
The theory is well defined along with equations. 
The results in the graph are well defined. 

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: Yes

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Important information is missing or
superficially treated.

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Suitable for the non-specialist

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Could be improved

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

title and abstract explanation: 

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended,
including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes

length of the paper recommendation: 

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Not always

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Needs improvement

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Satisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: fair

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: sufficiently novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: mostly accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good
match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No

Comments:
This paper presents a design and numerical study of photonic crystal fiber (PCF) for chemical detection in
THz region. Several parameters of PCFs are evaluated, and the authors claim that the proposed design shows
better performance than any other prior models for sensing. Although the design and results may be useful
for chemical detection, the reviewer is disappointed that the manuscript is not well organized, making it
difficult to understand the design and the numerical results. Thus the reviewer feels that this paper is not
suitable for publication is this journal. Follows are some of my concerns that may be helpful to improve this
manuscript.
1.    Actually, it is not clear to me that how the proposed PCF is used for chemical sensing. Do the authors
intend to inject the analyte into the holes in the fiber? What is the sensing mechanism?  Where is the sensing
region? Without clarifying these points, the analyses presented in this paper are just simulation of a PCF fiber,
but not related to a chemical sensor.
2.    In section II, the proposed design is presented with some core parameters such as d_CO, lambda_CO, and
d_CL defined. How do the authors obtain the optimal values of these parameters? In addition, I could not see
the function of photonic crystal structure in this design. What is the photonic band structure for sensing in
THz region?
3.    The material parameters used in this study are not given.
4.    The definition of confinement loss is given in Eq.(3). Is this parameter evaluated when the holes are filled
with air?
5.    In Figure 2, the field distributions are presented for different polarizations. However, the coordinate
system used is not defined.
6.    In figure 3, the relative sensitivity spectra of the fiber are shown. However, the definition of relative
sensitivity is not defined.
7.    In Fig. 4 and Fig. 6, the relative sensitivity and power fraction are calculated in terms of the increment and
decrement in optimal design parameters. Are the design parameters d_CO, lambda_CO, and d_CL? Do the
authors change these parameters simultaneously? Do these parameters mutually or independently influence
the performance?  It is better to perform detailed parametric study.
8.    Finally, it is not clear to me the advantages of using this PCF in THz region. It seems that this PCF can also
operate in longer wavelength region with similar or better performance.

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Moderately

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: No (explain)

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Treatment somewhat unbalanced,
but not seriously so.

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Appropriate for the generally knowledgeable
individual Working in the Field or a Related Field

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Poor

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: No (explain)

title and abstract explanation: Can be significantly improved.

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended,
including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes
length of the paper recommendation: 

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Not always

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Needs improvement

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Satisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: fair

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: slightly novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: partially accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: weak
match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No

Reviewer: 3
Recommendation: Review Again After Resubmission (Paper is not acceptable in its current form, but has
merit. A major rewrite is required. Author should be encouraged to resubmit a rewritten version after the
changes suggested in the Comments section have been completed.)

Comments:
The manuscript reports the numerical analysis of photonic crystal fiber for the chemical detection in the
terahertz range. This study is based on the TOPAS based photonic crystal fiber for chemical detection. The
manuscript can benefit from the following. 
1. Overall, the english could be improved to be better followed by the reader. 
2. Physical properties of the TOPAS used in the simulation needs to be reported.
3. Explanation of why the TOPAS is chosen for the study is missing.
4. TOPAS based photonic crystal fiber studies in the literature compared to the current study must be
evaluated. 
5. Limitations of the current study need to be discussed.

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: Yes

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Yes

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Appropriate for the generally knowledgeable
individual Working in the Field or a Related Field

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Satisfactory

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

title and abstract explanation: 

length of the paper recommendation: 

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Yes

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Needs improvement

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Satisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: fair

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: slightly novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: partially accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good
match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No

Reviewer: 4
Recommendation: Publish in Minor, Required Changes (as noted in the Comments section. This rating may
not be assigned for Sensors Letters.)

Comments:
Please find my confidential comments related to manuscript numbered Sensors-26157-2019, entitled
“Numerical Demonstration of Photonic Crystal Fiber Based
Chemical Detection in the Terahertz Range” for IEEE Sensors Journal.

The authors report a novel design of microstructure ring-based triangle mold photonic crystal fiber (RT-PCF)
has been numerically investigated and introduced as alcohol sensor between the Terahertz (THz) band
region to get a very high relative-sensitivity with a negligible confinement-loss (CL) profile. The authors state
that the proposed sensor is applicable for both the alcohol (ethanol- 1.354) and other analytes (water- 1.33,
benzene- 1.366) as well. The manuscript is well organized, both English and scientific explanation, and it
should be modified before publication in the IEEE Sensors Journal. There are some points should be
addressed by the authors before the acceptance. They are as following:

1.    Page no. 2, column 1, line 35, “The proposed RT-PCF along with a magnified-version of the core region is
displayed on Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b) respectively.” should be corrected as “The proposed RT-PCF along with a
magnified-version of the core region is displayed on Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b), respectively.”
2.    Page no. 2, column 2, line 21, symbols for the refractive-indexes are different as used in Eq. (1).
3.    Page no. 2, column 2, line 21-23, “the refractive-index (RI) of the analyte and the effective refractive-index
(RI) at operating frequency respectively.” should be corrected as “the refractive-index (RI) of the analyte and
the effective refractive-index (RI) at operating frequency, respectively.”
4.    Page no. 2, column 2, line 23, symbols, r, p are different as used in Eq. (1), r, p.
5.    Page no. 2, column 2, line 32, symbols for the TE and TM fields, respectively are different as used in Eq.
(2).
6.    Page no. 2, column 2, line 48, symbol for the velocity of light is different as used in Eq. (3).
7.    Page no. 2, column 2, line 49, symbol for the imaginary part of effective RI is different as used in Eq. (3).
8.    Page no. 3, column 1, lines 2 and 5, symbol, ‘V’ is different, as used in Eq. (5). 
9.    Page no. 3, column 1, line 10, symbols for the refractive-indexes are different as used in Eq. (5).
10.    Page no. 3, column 1, line 10-11, “the effective RI of the core-cladding region respectively.” should be
corrected as “the effective RI of the core-cladding region, respectively.”
11.    Page no. 3, column 1, line 12, symbol, ‘A’ is different, as used in Eq. (5).
12.    ‘x-polrization’ in Fig. 2 caption should be corrected as ‘x-polarization’.
13.    Page no. 3, column 1, line 34, symbol, ‘I(r)’ is different, as used in Eq. (6).

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Moderately

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: Yes

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Yes

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Suitable for the non-specialist

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Satisfactory

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

title and abstract explanation: 

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended,
including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes

length of the paper recommendation: 

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Yes

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Satisfactory

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Satisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: fair

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: slightly novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: mostly accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good
match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No

Reviewer: 5
Recommendation: Publish in Minor, Required Changes (as noted in the Comments section. This rating may
not be assigned for Sensors Letters.)

Comments:
1. author need to mention their exact contribution also existing work limitation did not well analyzed.
2. lack of literature review, consider following reference.
-Novel design and performance analysis of broadband dual layer circular polarizer based on frequency
selective surface for 60 GHZ [Link] Communications, Networking and Applications, 319-325
3. figure 1 and 2 need more explanation.
[Link] setting and parameters need more detail explanation.

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: Yes

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Yes

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Superficial

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Could be improved

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

title and abstract explanation: 

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended,
including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: 

length of the paper recommendation: 

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Not always

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Needs improvement

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Satisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: good

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: sufficiently novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: mostly accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good
match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No

Reviewer: 6

Recommendation: Reject (Paper is seriously flawed; do not encourage resubmission.) 

Comments:
A photonic crystal fiber has been designed for chemical detection at THz frequencies. In this regard, TOPAS
material is utilized as the background material. Some figures of merit have been employed to assess the
performance of the photonic sensor. However, this paper is not suitable for publication in the IEEE Sensors
Journal because of the following reasons:

1- Too many grammatical errors and typos can be found throughout this manuscript, which significantly
degrade its readability. In my opinion, the write-up of the authors does not possess sufficient quality for a
solid technical review, during which the reviewers should focus on the technical content as opposed to on
non-technical aspects of their write-up.

2- There are many incorrect technical statements in this manuscript, which considerably affect its technical
content.

3- The Introduction is not satisfactory, because it is too short such that many important items have been
neglected.

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: No

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: No

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: No (explain)

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Important information is missing or
superficially treated.

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Superficial

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Not novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Poor

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: No (explain)

title and abstract explanation: The Abstract is full of grammatical errors and ambiguous statements.

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended,
including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: No (explain)

length of the paper recommendation: The Introduction is not satisfactory.

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: No

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Poor

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Unsatisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: poor

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: not novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: inaccessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: poor
match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No