kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Sanjay Bhardwaj, Dong-Seong Kim "Dragonfly Approach for Resource Allocation in Industrial Wireless Network", Physical Communication,2020
By : sanjay
Date : 2020-07-03
Views : 151

Dear Professor Kim,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Physical Communication.

I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below. Please resubmit your revised manuscript by Aug 17, 2020.

When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed. 


Physical Communication values your contribution and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,    
Professor Michalis Matthaiou  
Editor-in-Chief  

Physical Communication

Editor and Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors have performed a thorough revision of their paper and the quality of presentation of their manuscript has been substantially improved. The authors should address the following comments in order to further improve the presentation of their manuscript as well as its scientific depth. Regarding the multi-objective optimization problems, game theoretic approaches have been proposed in the literature such as, Tsiropoulou, E.E., Katsinis, G., and Papavassiliou, S.. "Utility-based power control via convex pricing for the uplink in CDMA wireless networks." 2010 European Wireless Conference (EW). IEEE, 2010, D. J. Goodman and N. B. Mandayam, "Power control for wireless data", IEEE Personal Comm., vol. 7, pp. 48-54, April 2000, to deal with multi variable decision making and optimization in the field of resource allocation in wireless networks. The authors should provide some additional discussion regarding those methods and the differences compared to the
ones provided in this manuscript. Also, the authors should provide a table of notation within the manuscript to enable the reader to easily follow the provided analysis.




Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my comments in this revision, though not satisfactorily. A substantial improvement (see the comments below) is required before the manuscript can be accepted.

- The manuscript suffers several typos. ",i.e.", ", where,", and so on.
- 'S' defines both the number of scattered path and the data item?? This is confusing to follow. Also, notations related with sets are not well defined throughout the manuscript. The authors must maintain consistency in using notations.
- The range defined channel model components in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) does not seem correct to me. The authors should carefully define the Rician channel model.
- The way (6) is defined is not clear. What is $\forall n$ used for here? Please update this definition. Similarly with (9).
- In (12), why it is $\mathbb{T}_{\alpha_1 =1}$?
- In (24), extrapolate the variable 'x' in reference to (23) for a clear understanding.
- (26) is not well defined to understand Jain's Fairness. You have to define what R.V 'Y' stands for first. Alternatively, the authors can use $j(y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n)$. Also, I think the authors should define its (Fairness) meaning. " every metric has the same potential as well as opportunity and j(Y) represents a fairer model at
individual level." -> this is not clear to me.
- Figures need improvements. Also, it is suggested to update the font used in the labels to improve readability.