Design and Analysis of a Multi−Carrier Orthogonal Double Bit Rate Differential Chaotic Shift Keying Communication System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I studied this work and found that this can be acceptable for publication unless it is edited with care to fix some of the issues.
1. I saw the introduction is nice, but there are many sections that need to be revised. It is more important that the authors need give some details regarding the main aim of this paper as well as the novelty of the work. It is better to give details about why the work in this paper can be useful in a dynamic system field.
2. Figure 1 must be cited inside the body text. Section 3 is given without information, that why this section is needed? Give some details before starting this section.
3. Figure 3 and 4 shall be explained in the text.
4. Equations (15-16) are inserted without proper details.
5. The results in section 5 need more details. How the graphical results are obtained? Which numerical method is used to get these? Which equations and parameters, also the initial conditions are used to obtain these?
6. The captions of the figures must be improved.
7. In Section 6, the conclusion is not appropriate. I did not recommend the conclusion section. It should be revised properly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the detailed and constructive comments, which were very helpful for revising and improving the quality and readability of the paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript carefully according to the comments and suggestions. The changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but using bold and colored text "in red" in revised paper. The detailed point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions and the revised paper are given in the attachments.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer 2 Report
It was a quality study in which an experimental study was supported by simulation. Also, the results are interesting enough and promising. I have a few suggestions for authors to improve their articles as follows:
Figure 1 and figure 5 are not explained in the manuscript, since a caption alone will not be enough, there is a need for a more detailed explanation in the sentence.
The caption of Figure 5 has shifted to the next page, and the information under the subheading '5.4' is also on the next page.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the detailed and constructive comments, which were very helpful for revising and improving the quality and readability of the paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript carefully according to the comments and suggestions. The changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but using bold and colored text "in red" in revised paper. The detailed point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions and the revised paper are given in the attachments.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The problem of the study is presented clearly, with a good framework and well-defined objectives. The paper is well structured, with a robust literature review and the necessary data to understand the study.
It is recommended that the authors improve the following points:
- In the abstract, the methodologies adopted should be clearer and the results more enlightening - it is not enough to state "The results show that the MC-ODBR-DCSK system is excellent and promising".
- References should be identified in the text and should not be written simply, as for example: "improved in [7] and [8] respectively (...)"; "In [9], an improved (...)"; or "In [11] (...)".
- In the Conclusions, the authors should indicate the limitations of the study and recommendations for potential future studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the detailed and constructive comments, which were very helpful for revising and improving the quality and readability of the paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript carefully according to the comments and suggestions. The changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but using bold and colored text "in red" in revised paper. The detailed point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions and the revised paper are given in the attachments.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, a communication system with MC-ODBR-DCSK has been presented, and its BER is mathematically analyzed in AWGN channel. In addition, simulation results are provided for performance comparison. The technical contribution of this paper is meaningful. However, the presentation of this paper should be improved for better readability.
Additional major comments are as follows:
(1) Equation (20) should be verified by comparing its results with the simulation results.
(2) In Figs. 7-9, some BER curves are not smooth, which may be caused by a lack of simulation. The authors try to obtain more reliable BER results. If the BER curves presented in the paper are the reliable results, then the authors should explain why the BER curves are not smooth.
(3) In this paper, the authors have provided only the BER results in AWGN channel. However, in practical wireless communication systems, fading channels such as Rayleigh fading and Rician fading should be considered. The authors should be addressed in this channel issue.
(4) The organization of this paper should be improved. For example, each subsection in Section 2 is written in a small amount of content. Thus, the titles of subsections can be omitted.
(5) The mathematical symbols in sentences should be written in italics.
(6) "1th" should be corrected to "1st" in Figs. 2 and 4.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the detailed and constructive comments, which were very helpful for revising and improving the quality and readability of the paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript carefully according to the comments and suggestions. The changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but using bold and colored text "in red" in revised paper. The detailed point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions and the revised paper are given in the attachments.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
All the comments raised by the reviewer have been satisfactorily addressed in the revised manuscript.
