Centralized Co-Operative Detection Algorithm Based on Double Thresholds for Underwater Acoustic Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written for Centralized Cooperative Detection Algorithm  for Underwater Acoustic Networks. Following suggestions are recommended which will enhance the quality of manuscript.

1.  The abstract should be rewritten to giving the purpose of research.

2. The figures are too large and not correct.

3. The quality of English is too poor that it is becoming unable to understand the concept.

4. In line 46 What is CA? Kindly write full abbreviation once.

5.  In line 50, Mitola J I[4] proposed the concept 50 of cognitive radio. What she proposed? kindly elaborate and define completely.

6. In line 117, how this fluctuation equation is derived? or cite its reference? What do you mean by flucuation?

7. In table 2, write complete indications. What is defined by 2. It should be written 2 km. similarly there are tremendous mistakes in the paper. The manuscript should be rewritten removing all the typo mistakes.

8.  In figure 8, explain the significant time delay and show in the figure. Redraw fig 8 with higher resolution and clarity. All the figures are not displayed correctly. It is requested that the figures should be redrawn in a uniform format.

9. Briefly elaborate figure 9,10 and figure 11 which is the main result of the research. Also describe the caption correctly.

10. The references are too less. It is highly suggested that authors cite the key papers of underwater acoustic networks.

No experimental work is shown. The simulation work is also not correctly described. The quality of English is so poor that it is very difficult to understand. It is highly suggested that the paper should be rewritten considering the comments and re submitted again. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors focus their study on the underwater acoustic channels and they introduce a spectrum sensing approach named two threshold centralized comparative detection algorithm. Under this algorithm, each user makes a judgment independently and if the historical energy statistical value is between the two thresholds the number of sampling points is increased and the judgment is remained. The manuscript is overall well written and easy to follow and the authors have well thought out their main contributions. The provided theoretical analysis is concrete, complete, and correct and the authors have provided all the intermediate steps in order to enable the average reader to easily follow it. The discussion regarding the implementation of the algorithm and its operational characteristics is also detailed enabling the average reader to easily follow it. Furthermore, the provided numerical results are rich in order to show the pure operation and the performance of the proposed framework. The authors are highly encouraged to consider the following suggestions provided by the reviewer in order to improve the scientific depth of their manuscript, as well as they need to address the following minor comments in order to improve the quality of presentation of their manuscript. Initially, in Section 1, the provided related work is quite verbose and the authors need to better organize it in a more meaningful manner in order to identify the research contributions that have already been performed in the literature and the research gap that the authors tried to address. In Section 1, the authors need to discuss the most recent advances in the field of underwater acoustic channels, where similar research approaches have been proposed, such as Grieco, Luigi Alfredo, et al., eds. Ad-Hoc, Mobile, and Wireless Networks: 19th International Conference on Ad-Hoc Networks and Wireless, ADHOC-NOW 2020, Proceedings. Vol. 12338. Springer Nature, 2020, characterized by low computational complexity. In Section 2, the authors need to include a table summarizing the main notation that has been used in the paper and provide the units of the corresponding metrics, wherever this is appropriate. Furthermore, the authors need to include an additional section in their manuscript providing the theoretical analysis of the computational complexity of the proposed framework and discuss if it can be implemented in a real time or even close to real time manner. Finally, the manuscript has several typos, syntax, and grammar errors that the authors need to address in the revised version in order to improve the quality of presentation of their manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.  The authors propose a two-threshold centralized cooperative detection algorithm. Each user makes a judgment independently. If the historical energy statistical value is between the thresholds, the number of sampling points is in creased and the judgment is remade. The results are then sent to the fusion center, which uses the OR criteria to make a judgment. Simulation results show that this algorithm can improve the detection performance and reduce the error rate.

2.  The authors should present much more convincingly why the new methods are better and for which conditions exactly the users can then expect a better and a more reliable performance.

3.     In the figure 2, intrinsic path model schematic should be demonstrated in detail.

4.     In the figure 3, flow chart of energy detection should be demonstrated in detail.

5.     In the figure 7, input signal simulation diagram should be demonstrated in detail.

6.     In the figure 9, simulation comparison chart should be demonstrated in detail.

7.     In the figures 10 and 11, the simulation results should be demonstrated in detail.

8. The manuscript has 14 pages; the number of the pages should be increased.

9.     Revise the English thoroughly before submission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the minor comments but this manuscript lacks some major work addressed in comments which should be included in the manuscript as the quality of journal 

I still suggest to work on following comments 

1. The authors have said that the have done work only on simulations. Experimental work is required as there is no novelity in simulation work. It is suggested that at least authors should be underwater tank experiment.

2. The major lacking of the paper is that figures are not properly arranged yet. All the figures should be of same size.

3. The literature review is still too less. I truly understand that there are less literature in underwater acoustic networks compared to terrestrial networks but it is not too less that only 26 papers are available. I highly suggest to add key papers of underwater acoustic networks. It will help authors to make complete literature review and complete understanding and development in underwater acoustic networks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed in detail the reviewers comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your reply and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

no further comment.

Author Response

Thank you for your reply .