Review on Tunnel Communication Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper reviews the signal communication techniques that are used to solve the problem of communication through tunnels. The overall review topic targets important issue and is of practical significance. However, after going through the article, the authors are advised to incorporate the following major changes:

1. The overall writing of the manuscript needs revision in order to improve clarity. For instance, in Introduction, lines 33-38 need revision for better understanding and clarity for the reader.

2. The current Introduction section is very brief for a review paper and is not providing sufficient background of the problem in the context of existing literature. As such, Introduction needs to be further expanded to provide good background of the tunnel communication problem.

3. Again in the Introduction section, in the context of the existing literature, the main contributions of the review are missing.

4. It is highly recommended to add the overall organization (in Figure form) of the review paper in Introduction section

5. It is suggested to add a table that summarizes the main contributions, proposed solutions, limitations etc of all the articles that are reviewed by the authors

6. Under section 2, lines 48-50, it is stated that four aspects of wireless signal coverage in tunnels will be discussed. However, three aspects are discussed as last main sub-heading of section 2 is 2.3. Please check it.

&. More latest references (from years 2021 and 2022) should be incorporated in the review

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a tutorial paper that reviews the possible communication approaches in a tunnel. The topic is of practical interest. However, the content is not well organized.

 

First, some important issues are missing, such as the channel model inside the tunnel when different sources are adopted.

 

Second, the existing technologies that have been implemented or standards that have been discussed are not discussed at all.

 

Furthermore, in section 2, the authors almost discuss all the mainstream communication technologies, which is unnecessary. The characteristics of these communication technologies have been well studied and compared in many papers. Instead, the authors should focus on the promising technologies to support the communication in tunnels.

 

More specific performance evaluations are expected in this kind of review paper, e.g., the achievable rate, communication outage probability, communication latency. The experiment or simulation results should be reported.      

 

Last but not least, the presentation of this paper needs to be significantly improved. I can spot my typos and incomplete sentences, e.g., The word “repeaters” is repeated in line 56.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf