Dear Mr Gaspard Gashema,
Efficient-Spectrum Management Based on Localization of Primary User Position Toward 5G
Thank you for submitting your paper to IET Communications. The peer review process is now complete and the conclusion is that, while the paper is relevant and potentially worthy of publication, significant revisions are needed. My decision is therefore to provisionally accept your paper subject to major revisions.
The reviewer comments are given below. Please make sure that you address all the comments when revising the manuscript. Please be aware that your paper may be declined if the changes cannot be easily identified. If the referees are not convinced that their concerns have been addressed this will, at best, result in a request for further modifications which will delay publication, at worst it could result in rejection.
For this reason, when resubmitting your revised manuscript, please deal fully with the reviewers¡¯ comments and also detail how you have dealt with them in a covering letter. This covering letter should be included in both the 'response to decision letter' dialogue box, as well as uploaded as an additional file. If you do not agree with a reviewer¡¯s comment you must state this and explain carefully why you do not agree.
When you have completed your revisions please:
- Upload your revised paper in both PDF and source file format. Note that figures will be used as supplied and that these should therefore be of high quality.
- Please make sure that references are formatted within the IET¡¯s house style. Sample references are available from the online Author Guide at IET Digital Library Author Guide
To upload your revised paper please go to https://www.iet-review.rivervalleytechnologies.com/ and the paper should be listed in your Tasks and say "Ready for Major Revision". Then select View Article and you will find the Start Major Revision button here. You will then have the option to Edit the article details and files from the previous version of the paper.
Please submit source files (.doc, docx, or .tex. files for text and .eps, .tif or jpeg files for figures). If your paper has been prepared using LaTeX, please also upload a single .pdf file of the paper together with the LaTeX source file and the figures. Ensure that you delete any files that do not form part of the revision before completing the submission.
Please note that, in order to publish your paper as quickly as possible, we ask that you submit the revision of your paper within 28 days of receiving this email. If you need more time, it is important that you inform the IET office before the deadline so that they may be able to grant an extension. If you are having trouble resubmitting your paper, please contact the IET office directly by replying to this email.
I look forward to receiving your revised version.
Dr Liuqing Yang
Associate Editor Comments:
Comments to the author
The reviewers have identified some interesting points in this work but have suggested several improvements and clarifications, which can be found in the attached list of comments.
Comments to the Author
#1 Submitted by: Reviewer 1
The authors consider timely topic in this paper. However, there are some issues related to the results and theoretical derivations provided in the paper. The comments are listed below:
1. More significant contributions are required. Please check three points of key contributions. Except first one others are not much significant.
2. The authors indicated semiveriogram after equation 11. This term should be explained in the text.
3. Further clarifications on Fig. 4 are required. Present clarifications are not sufficient to my belief.
4. Is the equation 17 complete? Complete equation with proper clarifications on all terms are required.
5. In 3.3.2, the authors indicated Markov localization and particle filtering. Please explain and define them with proper referencing.
6. Simulation parameters need to be tabulated.
7. Where did the authors indicate average capacity in the system model and theoretical analysis portion? However, the results in FIg. 9 is showing plots of the average capacity.
8. How did the authors get expression of throughput with KF and other techniques? I could not locate them.
9. In conclusion, RSSI is wrongly written as resource signal strength indicator.
#2 Submitted by: Reviewer 2
Overall, this is a very interesting paper and a useful contribution to the literature. I have two suggestions that would make this paper more accessible and useful. First, this paper reads somewhat clumsily, as the text is missing many articles (i.e. "the", "a", and "an"). This is a not uncommon situation for those whose first language is not English. Additionally, in some places, the grammatical structure is somewhat awkward. To make this clearer, I have attached a PDF file which contains an example of what I mean. This situation can be readily overcome by having a native English speaker review the paper for grammar and structure.
The second suggestion is to provide some additional technical clarification in section 4 Performance Evaluation. It would be useful to better characterize the two-dimensional area wherein the performance of the two approaches are being evaluated. There is a general statement that an environment is assumed that has "...many phenomena affecting the propagation of signal such as shadowing, fading and noise effects." While this clearly indicates that there are a mix of statistical and deterministic sources of channel degradation, it would be very useful to discuss how this part of the channel is characterized. For instance, if this channel interference is primarily deterministic, are more or less sensors required than if the channel interference is primarily statistical. If a 50-50 mixture (however one defines that) of deterministic and statistical interference is present, does that evaluation result in an "optimum" number of sensors for maximizing usage of the spectrum. Detailed consideration of these aspects of the problem may be beyond the scope of the submitted paper, but should be at least addressed, and possibly discussed as an area for further investigation in the conclusion section, much like the discussion of the hybrid CRN scheme.
Again, a very interesting paper.