Performance Study of Generalized Space Time Block Coded Enhanced Fully Optical Generalized Spatial Modulation System Based on Málaga Distribution Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The problems in the article are as follows:

1.      In the article, the parameters that appear in the formula for the first time should be explained, e.g., in formula (4), in line 221, and the authors are advised to modify them according to the specification.

2.      In the Simulation results and analysis section, the simulation parameters are not clearly indicated, and the authors are suggested to adopt a clearer expression.

3.      In the Simulation results and analysis section, the theoretical derivation results are given in the simulation diagram without the experimental results, which makes it impossible to verify the correctness of the theoretical results, and the authors are suggested to supplement and revise this section.

4.      In the Performance analysis section, the ABER upper bound is used for analyzing the BER, but the combination with STBC coding is not reflected in this section, and the authors are suggested to supplement and modify this section.

5.      In equation (20), the necessary derivation process is missing, and the authors are suggested to add and revise this part.

6.      In the References section, the format of some references is not standardized, and the authors are advised to revise them according to the standard.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.       Abstract is more like a conclusion, should re-write

2.       Intro section is not appropriate, it should be meaningful with not only put the details of current study rather to focus on variety of observations and then move to some benchmark studies. subjects lacks literature review.

3.       The system code EFOGSM is designed by authors or they used the scheme to develop a model?

4.       GSTBC-EFOGSM do what? Any application

5.       How parametric assumptions considered in section 4 and 5?

6.       Authors should do comparison in table not in figures.

7.       Conclusion section should be concise

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors analyzed, by simulation, the performance study of a generalized space-time block coded enhanced fully optical generalized spatial modulation system based on Málaga distribution model. The topic is relevant to the next generation of wireless networks. However, the authors need to address the following remarks and comments before further considering it for publication: 

1. Fig.1 should replot with a clear description.

2. Line 158: the rounded symbol has been defined again.

3. Eq. (5) needs to be carefully rechecked.

4. Section 4: The main body of this paper is MIMO. What is the purpose of writing Section 4? Does there have a close relationship with the thesis of this work? In addition, the aggregated channel attenuation model with turbulence, pointing errors, and even atmospheric absorption has been well studied and derived. I strongly condense this section with the following references. To increase the readability and robustness, authors should also review these references in the Introduction.

R1. Dual-Hop Optical Communication Systems Over Málaga Turbulence Under Pointing Error Impairments With Decode-and-Forward Protocol

R2. On the performance analysis of dual-hop mixed FSO/RF systems

5. Figure 3: why is the transmission rate of GSTBC-EFOGSM lower than EFOGSM?

6. Line 409: What are the units of computational complexity? The authors should provide more description about this.

7. For easier reading and understanding, it would be essential to have a table with all variables used and avoid using the same variable with different definitions

8. There are certain typographical and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. The authors are suggested to proofread the paper. In addition, the authors are advised to recheck the manuscript once and remove those errors, such as line 156-158.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have significiently improved the manuscript and addressed the comments. However, i just have one comment.

Table.4 should be a nomenclature with no double columns(please check journal guidelines)