Review Reports
by
- Filipe Conceição1,2,*,†,
- Marco Gomes1,2,† and
- Daniel Castanheira2,4,†
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is very well written, it addresses a topical topic presenting a complete overview of the waveforms usable in 5G and post-5G systems. The essential parameters of the systems are taken into account, quantifying the advantages and disadvantages of each waveform in relation to these parameters.
It would have been useful to take into account the bandwidth provided, thus being able to estimate the throughput that ultimately dictates to which applications certain waveforms are suitable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have claimed that the submitted manuscript presents several beyond 5G waveforms candidates along with their transceiver architectures, advantages, and disadvantages. However, the main concern is the paper’s novelty as there is numerous member of works have been presented in the literature to address this topic. Therefore, the reviewer believes this paper does not add a value to what have done in the state of the art so it can be appreciated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please update references and include some latest published in 2020.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors present the outcome of their extensive comparison between several candidate waveforms for 6G systems. Although the presented physical layer techniques are well known by the communications community their unifying perspective, analysis and comparison is indeed original and deserves publication.
The only aspect of the manuscript that I believe requires further work is the conclusions section. One would expect a deeper analysis regarding the compared waveforms than the one given in Table 2 and the extremely brief conclusions section. The authors seem to conclude that no waveform fulfills the desired requirements but they fail to provide an alternative way forward other that "future wireless system must be flexible by taking into account the different 5G and beyond services requirements and propagation conditions”. It is recommended to include a more detailed comparative analysis and a proposed alternative.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the overall contribution of this maunscript is limited, useful materials with further explanations have been added to the current version which can be valuable for possible publications. However, I do recommend the authors to include and compare the 5G and beyond candidates waveforms based on all/as much possible the mentioned criteria in section 2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf