Effective Resource Allocation Technique to Improve QoS in 5G Wireless Network
, Suresh Annamalai 2, Manoj Kumar 3, Ashutosh Mishra 4,* and Rakesh Shrestha 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper addresses an interesting and timely topic. It is overall well written, yet it would require a careful proofreading not only to eliminate typos (e.g., it is frequent to find hyphenated words) but also, in some occasions, to improve the clarity of the message.
There are some elements in the paper (and in the keywords) for which the relation to the paper is not clear. Notably, the paper argues that the proposed mechanism enhances wireless security yet it does not introduces any discussion along the paper on that matter. Same goes to ICN which is mentioned but not at all discussed/leveraged in the solution/validation.
The related work is limited and outdated (one reference from 2020 and one for 2019). There has been a large effort in the recent years towards the application of AI/ML solutions for 5G and beyond networks. Resource allocation is not exception to that and thus this should be reflected in the related works section. Moreover, the section should clearly compare and highlight the contributions of this paper as compared with existing contributions (particularly with previous work from the authors [26]).
The reproducibility and consequently the significance of the contributions are highly limited. More details on the simulation setup and AI/ML pipeline processes must be provided.
- Why selecting ns2 as a simulation tool?
- What’s the experiment setup?
- Which models were used for the simulations?
- Data processing and normalization are not discussed.
- Dataset description is limited.
- Resulting dataset and models should be disclosed.
The validation would benefit from comparing with recent works. Also the the mechanism itself should also be evaluated/validated (e.g., consumed resources, execution time, etc) this would provide some perspective on the tradeoffs and practical applicability of the solution.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank editors and reviewers for their time and efforts they spend on reviewing this manuscript.
We carefully considered your comments as well as those reviews suggested by the three reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. Original reviewer comments are in italic face and responses are in regular typeface. Please find the corrections highlighted with yellow marker in the updated manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The difference between the study and other research has not been revealed. The originality of the work and its advantages over others should be explained in detail.
There are many typos, uppercase, and lowercase errors. Please see lines 61, 111, 118, 135, 199, 204, 213, and 320. These are just the ones I have noticed so the whole paper should be double-checked.
Spelling and usage inconsistencies in figures and tables should be corrected. ("fig. 2" "Figures. 5 and 6", "Figure 7", "Figure 10." "Figure 5:")
Some of the captions of the figure and tables are bold and some are not.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank editors and reviewers for their time and efforts they spend on reviewing this manuscript.
We carefully considered your comments as well as those reviews suggested by the three reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. Original reviewer comments are in italic face and responses are in regular typeface. Please find the corrections highlighted with yellow marker in the updated manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The paper requires moderate English editing. The limited grammar constructions make it difficult to comprehend the intentions of the authors. You may use the journal editing services or contact a native English writer to proofread the entire manuscript.
2. How does the proposed algorithm perform when the CSI is known and not known? Please, show the architecture for these scenarios.
3. Almost all figures in this paper are poorly presented. Figures 1 and 4 are very poor. Authors are to create their figures using Visio or any other quality tool. The results/graphs should be plotted using MATLAB.
4. The algorithms require proper formatting.
5. There is a need for citation in Table 2.
6. The governing expressions for the channel estimation are requested.
7. Authors need to show clearly, what actual modifications to the existing models were conducted.
8. The future scope is missing in the conclusion.
9. Most of the references are old. More recent and highly relevant papers from 2022-2023 need to be added accordingly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank editors and reviewers for their time and efforts they spend on reviewing this manuscript.
We carefully considered your comments as well as those reviews suggested by the three reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. Original reviewer comments are in italic face and responses are in regular typeface. Please find the corrections highlighted with yellow marker in the updated manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of the reviewers comments remain unsolved.
- The text have to be proofread to make it more readable
- Wireless security: The authors claim that the mechanism increases wireless security yet this is not discussed on the paper nor verifiable on the results.
- The use of ICN and its role is the solution are not clear: Where was it used? How was it used? Was it evaluated?
- Related work section could include a table summarising existing work as well as highlighting the positioning of the proposed solution in such a table.
- The update of the related work have mostly consist in replacing references. The content is almost the same. Which in the end to the very least means that no new knowledge has been brought to the paper.
- The simulation setup needs to be presented and explained.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for the time and effort they spend reviewing this manuscript. We carefully considered your comments as well as those reviews suggested by the three reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. Original reviewer comments are in italics face and responses are in regular typeface. We have attached the response file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved enough to be published
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for the time and effort they spend reviewing this manuscript. We are thankful to the reviewers positive comments for the publication of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my earlier comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for the time and effort they spend reviewing this manuscript. We are thankful to the reviewer's positive comments for the publication of the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the referred comments and the new version have significantly improved with regards to previous versions.
