Long-Range Wireless Radio Technologies: A Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this survey paper, the authors discussed the long range wireless radio technologies considered the low power wide area network (LPWAN). The comments are as following:
Note - 1: The same paper title I found which is submitted in conference (2017 Eleventh International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), and date of conference between 4-6 Dec. 2017. DOI: 10.1109/ICSensT.2017.8304507
Note – 2: Unclear citation are added in the reference part, (for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band.)
There are many survey papers are published which is given below: the authors did not show any potential why this survey is better to compare others?
Augustine Ikpehai, Bamidele Adebisi, Khaled M. Rabie, Kelvin Anoh, Ruth E. Ande, Mohammad Hammoudeh, Haris Gacanin, Uche M. Mbanaso, "Low-Power Wide Area Network Technologies for Internet-of-Things: A Comparative Review", Internet of Things Journal IEEE, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2225-2240, 2019.
Poursafar, Noushin, Md Eshrat E. Alahi, and Subhas Mukhopadhyay. "Long-range wireless technologies for IoT applications: a review." 2017 Eleventh International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST). IEEE, 2017.
The survey overview is not well presented in abstract, section I and II. Especially, the section-II, the difference between the short range and long range applications is not founded and it need to be well discussed. The title also need to be written correctly (For reference see title after punctuation) The presentation and novelty of the paper could be improved. There are some typos and errors. The technical writing with proper explanation also needs to be improved as well. In this survey, the study approach based on long range connectivity, challenges of each technology are not highlighted. The authors did not show any potential to make difference in licensed and unlicensed spectrum. In abstract section, the authors mentioned the proposed technologies and its characteristics but I did not find any graphical representation regard characteristics. Why? The authors added most of the figures which is available in the previous reference but how it could be better if authors draw some picture related to LPWAN communication such as overview, difference between licensed and unlicensed spectrum with long range deployment scenario.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable time invested on reading our paper and providing helpful comments. In the revised paper and in particular with reference to the below specific comments raised by the reviewer, we provide clear explanations and justifications regarding mainly the motivation and positioning of our work. Accordingly, corresponding changes have been made in several places in the original manuscript as described in detail below, to properly reflect this discussion.
--------------
Note - 1: The same paper title I found which is submitted in conference (2017 Eleventh International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), and date of conference between 4-6 Dec. 2017. DOI: 10.1109/ICSensT.2017.8304507
R1: We thank the reviewer for pointing us this reference that we missed. We have added it in our survey. To our opinion, although this review is very interesting, the approach is slightly different than ours since we do not specifically focus on IoT applications but more on the technologies themselves. And the titles differ in this way ("Long-range Wireless Technologies for IoT Applications: A Review" vs "Long range wireless radio technologies: a survey").
--------------
Note – 2: Unclear citation are added in the reference part, (for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band.)
R2: We agree that given the particularity of our approach aiming at proposing a clear overview including technical and commercial barriers but also generalities, we have to refer to several plain url, no scientific paper available. We have chosen to display them as references rather than footnotes for the sake of clarity but we will follow the recommendations of the editors.
--------------
Note - 3: There are many survey papers are published which is given below: the authors did not show any potential why this survey is better to compare others?
Augustine Ikpehai, Bamidele Adebisi, Khaled M. Rabie, Kelvin Anoh, Ruth E. Ande, Mohammad Hammoudeh, Haris Gacanin, Uche M. Mbanaso, "Low-Power Wide Area Network Technologies for Internet-of-Things: A Comparative Review", Internet of Things Journal IEEE, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2225-2240, 2019.
Poursafar, Noushin, Md Eshrat E. Alahi, and Subhas Mukhopadhyay. "Long-range wireless technologies for IoT applications: a review." 2017 Eleventh International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST). IEEE, 2017.
R3: Thank you for showing us these references. We have added them in our survey together with a description of our differentiation. These papers are both of great interest but we believe they provide another perspective. The former paper addresses mainly challenges arisen at the physical layer. Our survey is higher level and includes more technologies and standards together with commercial products and technical availability. The latter paper focuses more on IoT applications, while we are more generic. We have also presented novel technologies and standards that have appeared since the publication of this paper.
--------------
Note - 4: The survey overview is not well presented in abstract, section I and II. Especially, the section-II, the difference between the short range and long range applications is not founded and it need to be well discussed.
R4: Thanks for your comments. We have proof-read and re-organized the abstract and introduction, highlighting our goal and motivations all along this survey. We have made explicit the difference between long range and short range technologies.
--------------
Note - 5: The title also need to be written correctly (For reference see title after punctuation) The presentation and novelty of the paper could be improved. There are some typos and errors. The technical writing with proper explanation also needs to be improved as well.
R5: Thanks. We have proof-read the paper and corrected it.
--------------
Note - 6: In this survey, the study approach based on long range connectivity, challenges of each technology are not highlighted. The authors did not show any potential to make difference in licensed and unlicensed spectrum.
R6: We have revised the paper and hope it is now clearer.
--------------
Note - 7: In abstract section, the authors mentioned the proposed technologies and its characteristics but I did not find any graphical representation regard characteristics.
Why? The authors added most of the figures which is available in the previous reference but how it could be better if authors draw some picture related to LPWAN communication such as overview, difference between licensed and unlicensed spectrum with long range deployment scenario.
R7: We have added Fig 1 and Fig 7 in our last versions, we hope this answers the reviewer's concern.
--------------
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed a paper which is a survey of long-range and low-power communication technologies.
The key point of this paper is the combination of technical insight together with economical aspects. This means that this paper is able to assist the beginning of a working project, focusing on the most appropriate technology.
Different aspects of all the technologies are covered and the paper is sound and well written.
Author Response
The authors proposed a paper which is a survey of long-range and low-power communication technologies.
The key point of this paper is the combination of technical insight together with economical aspects. This means that this paper is able to assist the beginning of a working project, focusing on the most appropriate technology.
Different aspects of all the technologies are covered and the paper is sound and well written.
R:
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable time invested on reading our paper. We appreciate the fact that the reviewer finds interesting the combination of technical insight together with economical aspects.
Reviewer 3 Report
This version of the paper is fine except that some subsections are not numbered. Congratulations on the good work.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comments.
