Buffer-Aided Relaying Strategies for Two-Way Wireless Networks
, Samuel Mafra 1,*, Samuel Montejo-Sánchez 2, Evelio M. GarcÃa Fernández 3 and Richard Demo Souza 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work considers an interesting problem in an area that is active for almost twenty years. The paper overall is well written and relatively easy to follow. The reviewer finds the literature review can be greatly improved. First, there are several papers cited but they are not relevant and second there are several relevant papers that are not discussed that consider what is known in the literature as network level cooperation. Indicatively are listed two papers below (but also check the references inside for additional papers and include the relevant works, more papers can be found also through google scholar by searching network level cooperation etc):
N. Pappas, A. Ephremides, A. Traganitis, ‘‘Stability and Performance Issues of a Relay Assisted Multiple Access Scheme with MPR Capabilities", Computer Communications, Vol. 42, 1 Apr. 2014, Pages 70-76, Elsevier.
N. Pappas, M. Kountouris, J. Jeon, A. Ephremides and A. Traganitis, "Effect of energy harvesting on stable throughput in cooperative relay systems," in Journal of Communications and Networks, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 261-269, April 2016.
Furthermore, one assumption can be further discussed how to be removed. More specifically, the absence of direct links, since if we have a wireless transmission, we may still have a success probability that can be low but it can still be useful. This can be further discussed, I understand that the analysis of that part can be a different paper itself, but at least some discussion would be beneficial.
Author Response
We thank you for your valuable time and for providing many constructive comments and suggestions that allowed us to improve our manuscript significantly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As per my observations,
The paper which is submitted by the authors is well explained and well organized
My queries are
1. Future works need more focus
2. Limitations of the existing work and proposed work must be compared and pitfalls will be identified
Author Response
We thank you for your valuable time and for providing many constructive comments and suggestions that allowed us to improve our manuscript significantly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the paper deals with wireless transmission, there is no mention or discussion on radio propagation, distances between transmitters and receivers etc. and carrier frequencies in the Monte Carlo simulations. The troposphere will certainly introduce fading, mostly Rayleigh, and in some cases even Rice, but the Authors seem unaware of the physical layer. For this reason, in my opinion, the paper should be significantly restructured to include, in the Monte Carlo simulations, a variable radio propagation evnvironment, being Rayleigh the worst case. Assuming, in Table 4 SNR=10 dB is just one case, completely independnt of the radio propagation channel.
Minor observations: In Table 4 power must be in dBmW or in dBW not in dB.
All codes listed in Tables should be in Appendices. In the References there must not be the Appendix 6.
Author Response
We thank you for your valuable time and for providing many constructive comments and suggestions that allowed us to improve our manuscript significantly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have sufficiently addressed my remarks and now the paper is more complete.
