Evolution towards Coordinated Multi-Point Architecture in Self-Organizing Networks for Small Cell Enhancement Systems
, Tsung-Tao Lu 1, Chin-Tan Lee 2,*, Jwo-Shiun Sun 1, Hsin-Piao Lin 1, Yuh-Shyan Hwang 1 and Wen-Tsai Sung 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Authors review in thepth the applications of the coordinated multi‐point (CoMP) architecture operation of enhanced node B (eNB) in wireless communication networks of device‐to‐device (D2D) signaling.
It is a very interesting work, that can be accepted after fixing some minor issues:
I find missing in the related literature some related work papers such as:
K. Haseeb, A. Rehman, T. Saba, S.A. Bahaj, J. Lloret, Device-to-Device (D2D) Multi-Criteria Learning Algorithm Using Secured Sensors. Sensors, 22, 2115. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22062115
Along the paper authors provide cases with real values, but I think that authors should also include a real test of a running scenario not only a case fixed values, which seems to be a classroom exercise. Authors must modify that.
Authors should include their future work at the end of the conclusion section.
I do not find English Languaje mistakes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This paper deals with implementation of a system for providing wireless access to a large indoor public space. However it is not well presented, lacks sufficient novelty and does not provide some important aspects.
Regarding presentation for example, in Table 1, the reader must assume that the points on the right are business requirements that are going to be addressed using the technologies to the left, and the text in the middle explains in which network layer that technology is going to be applied. However, it is not discussed other than in the first phrase of the introduction. The same goes with Fig. 2, which seems to be incorrectly formated and is discussed only as "CoMP architecture taking SoN network solution into SCE system for IoT application to the novel usage environment as shown in Fig. 2". The same pattern appears in many figures and Tables, in which information points are presented but not discussed or correlated with other aspects of the work.
Regarding novelty, the first phrase of the conclusion reads: "This paper covered the design principles of a fiber repeater in detail, including..."(three points). The first is related to the fiber repeater, the second and third are not. The third point is related to "successful tunnel engineering", but it is not clear what it means. I suppose it means successful tunnel coverage. It may be considered successful, but for it to be considered engineering it requires a clear design and implementation methodology that was not presented in the paper.
This work might be of interest for some readers to extract some insight of how this was done for a particular case, but it seems more a technical report than a scientific paper. Electronics Journal is not the ideal platform to publish this work.
Inbuilding should be indoors
abovementioned (line 659) should be separated.
There are some akward sentences. Examples:
"SCE have an exclusive strongly to improve capital expenditure (CAPEX) is sues are fast roll out allow operators, low capital costs and low implementation risk to try out these systems" (line 56). What does SCE have? The same type of English is present at least in the whole introduction, making it hard to read.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Thank you for addressing the comments and concerns from the reviewers and for updating the manuscript accordingly. However, certain parts of the text were slightly difficult to comprehend due to grammatical errors. Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of data included in the article that may only be relevant to the practical implementation stages but not in the presentation of the novel research results. For example, I do not see the relevance of describing the dimensions of a train and how many windows it includes. The paper reads more like an as-built design report. If there is any relevance to such data in presenting the solutions, then this should be described clearly to the reader. Otherwise, I recommend being concise and focusing on presenting the novel aspects of the proposed solution.
Furthermore, the diagrams in Figure 2 and Figure 7 appear to be incomplete with a portion of it being missing.
Many parts of the manuscript were slightly difficult to comprehend due to grammatical errors and being overwhelmed with data that seem irrelevant to the presentation of the research results. I recommend revising the text for grammatical correctness, and to present the results concisely.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The work looks exciting and vigorous. But the writing, English, and formatting need more attention throughout the paper. Simple and short sentences help readers to understand the work. Writing with clarity is crucial to develop an interest in reading.
Many references stated in the bibliography are not accessible (for example, 13, 14). Please improve the bibliography and verify whether all references are available to read.
Bullets are unnecessary in a few places (for example, in lines 185, 188, 547, and 597).
Most of the Equations need proper alignment and formatting.
What is the character do in equation (3)?
The subscripts in Equations (5) and (6) must be corrected.
Bullets on lines 228 to 236 look unnecessary, and the equations must be aligned.
English check is required on line 237.
The equation (12), tables (3), and (4) need formatting.
Subscripts in lines 345 - 348 need to be fixed.
Table 7 is not clearly readable. It looks like it is cropped at the top.
The two figures on page 18 have no caption.
Figure 24 needs to have x-axis, y-axis labels, and legends. The figure needs a brief explanation.
Figure 25 looks inappropriate in the results section. The result sections should have only the results of the proposed work.
Most of the sentences are lengthy and hard to understand. Please try to break long sentences into two or more simple sentences to help readers understand your writing. For example, the sentence from lines 30 - 34 looks too lengthy. Another example is the goal stated in Table 1.
The grammar looks incorrect in many places. For example, in lines 34 -36. Using tools such as Grammarly may help to improve writing and grammar.
Formatting and punctuation need to be taken care of in most of the sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title is misleading. Should be related to, as stated by the authors: "This thesis is to investigate the FR systems which apply for RoF technology in cellular communication systems working with the Metro, High-Speed Railway and Subway, such as analysis for public coverage of an indoor novel transition system." It is a design example, not a scientific or engineering experiment.
Extensive and carefull review of English required. Errors range from gramatical errors to words that dont exist (e.g. unadvantage), driving the reader to assume the meaning of many phrases and thus compromising the message. Some passages are incomprehensible or seem to be unrelated to the surrounding text, e.g. second paragraph of the introduction.
Many figures and tables are confusing and must be improved. For example, the objetive of Table 1 is not clear, and the reader must fill the blanks by himself in Fig. 19.
Some acronyms are not defined before first usage (e.g. RAT, FR, CPICH, others). Alternatively, have a list of acronyms at the end of the paper. Some acronyms are not needed at all, especially in some figures, e.g. MIMO.
The method seems apropriate, it seems to follow the guidelines, it might be of interest to some readers how this system was implemented but it is not in generall aplicable to other similar situations because information is lacking. For example, while in the train, was the train full? Power control and user interference might affect measurements.
Reviewer 2 Report
The actual scope and focus of the work presented in this article is unclear. In addition to the difficulty with understanding what is being stated in certain parts of the manuscript, there does not appear to be a clear description of the problems that are being addressed in the present system and how the proposed solution(s) compares with the other results from previous work. In one part of the article, the emphasis appears to be on improvements in the Radio-over-Fiber for systems such as high-speed rail transport systems. However, the proposed improvements have not been clearly highlighted in the article and in contrast with existing solutions. Elsewhere in the article, it states that fiber optical repeater systems are investigated in the article. Figures 1 and 2 appear to illustrate a very broad architecture, but the diagrams do not correlate well with what is described in the article and further does not showcase the part of the system that is being investigated.
In Section 2, it is not clear what is novel in the systems described in that section. Furthermore, it is not clear how any of these systems/modules are adapted for use in self-organizing networks. The same is true about what is described in Section 3.
The details of proposed system architecture shown in Figure 8 will need to be better described to the reader since this appears to be part of the main result proposed in the article.
Overall, there appears to be many different results presented in the article that seem disjointed and the connections between them have not been made clear to the reader. It is also not clear what objective(s) are to be achieved by the proposed solutions, and which parts of the proposed solution are novel. Furthermore, I am unable to judge how well the proposed solution performs due to lack clarity in the objectives as well as lack of comparison with existing solutions/architecture.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is an interesting concept. But the organization of the contents is difficult to grasp. Too much theory was given. It is hard to understand the contribution of the current work. It has been mentioned as a thesis. I was wondering if should be an article instead. Figure 3 mentions chapters instead of sections.
Typos like '4The' on the 2nd line on page 6, and 'unbalanced' and 'hightening' on page 7 need to be fixed. All equations need to be formatted neatly. Tables are confusing, for example, in Table 1 there are two columns with names, 'solve problem' and 'specific coverage area' but underneath we see only a paragraph-like statement. Similarly, Tables 4 and 6 have to be organized correctly.
On page 7, Eb is energy per bit, not energy bit I believe.
Overall, stating preciously the contribution of the work makes it easy for readers. Explaining the components of figures related to this work helps to understand the experimental scenarios instead of just mentioning the figures. There is no specific results section given.
