A Secure Optical Body Area Network Based on Free Space Optics and Time-Delayed 2D-Spectral/Spatial Optical CDMA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a flexible and secure optical body area network based on free space optics wireless technology and a time-delayed two dimensional spectral/spatial optical code-division multiple access system.

Although this paper is structurally complete and logically clear, there are a few problems in the manuscript, which needs the author to modify for being accepted. The problems in the manuscript are shown below in detail.

1. The authors are asked to indicate in Section 2 what other e-health platforms are available.

2. In the introductory section, " The U.S.  healthcare spending was $734.0 billion in 2021 which grew 2.7% to $4.3 trillion in 2021, or $12,914 per person, and accounted for 18.3% of the GDP [5]. It is projected that health expenditures will grow at the rate of 5.1% per year over 2021-30 [5]." What the author is trying to say with the above quote is not clearly expressed by the author.

3. Ask the authors to indicate in Section II why e-Health solutions are important for remote health monitoring of senior citizens and what advantages they have over other programs.

4. Please briefly describe the principles of the FSO technique in Section II.

minor editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

based on the below comments the manuscript should be rejected

1. The abstract lacks clarity and conciseness. It should provide a clearer and more succinct overview of the paper's contributions and results.

2. The manuscript should provide more detailed information about the existing literature and how this proposed work differs from previous research on secure optical body area networks.

3. The paper should provide a comprehensive explanation of the chosen 2D-spectral/spatial DW-ZCC code and its advantages over alternative coding techniques used in similar applications.

4. The description of the simulation setup in Section 5 is insufficient. It should include information on key simulation parameters, assumptions, and scenarios.

5. The manuscript should present a more thorough analysis of the system's performance under various scenarios, including different transmission distances and weather conditions, to ensure the proposed solution's robustness.

6. The paper should address potential challenges and limitations of the proposed approach and discuss how they could impact the practical implementation and scalability of the system.

7. The use of the term "low receiver sensitivities" in the conclusion is vague and should be replaced with specific metrics or thresholds to measure the system's sensitivity.

8. The manuscript should compare the proposed system's performance metrics with state-of-the-art solutions in the field to demonstrate its superiority.

9. The authors need to elaborate on the security aspects of the proposed OBAN system. The security measures to protect patients' health data in an insecure FSO channel should be thoroughly discussed.

 

10.          The abstract and conclusion should highlight the potential real-world applications and practical benefits of the proposed system in healthcare settings, emphasizing its significance and impact in the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

authors have incorporated all the comments suggested b me, and the manuscript can be accepted in its current form