An Underdetermined Convolutional Blind Separation Algorithm for Time–Frequency Overlapped Wireless Communication Signals with Unknown Source Number

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The general idea of the paper seems to be good. However,there are several minor technical challenges that should be effectively addressed.

Comments:

1-     There are some grammatical errors and typos that should be corrected before publication.

2-     It is recommended to provide a nomenclature at the beginning of the paper to define all variables clearly.

3-     Introduction has been vaguely written. My suggestion is to divide the introduction into three subsections: 1) motivation and incitement, 2) literature review and 3) contribution and paper organization.

    - The main contribution of the paper should be highlighted and emphasized. it would be great if the drawbacks and gaps of literature are clear and, particularly, how the proposed approach aims at filling these gaps

   -  Quality of  figures 1 and 2 are poor and should be improved

-  -  Equation 18 is not well centered. 

-  -  List of abbreviations need to be put at the end of the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article focus on an underdetermined convolutional blind separation algorithm for time-frequency overlapped wireless communication signals with unknown source number. Bearing in mind the topicality of this article, I expected to find a greater connection with the existing literature. In addition, there are also references that seem incomplete (vide reference 22, line 393) and therefore, although it seems like an aspect of detail, they must be corrected. The conclusions also seem short, the authors should focus on what is new and how it contributes to theory and practice. Once again, it seems to me that the bridge with literature is lacking here. Although I am not an expert on the subject, I think that authors will only have their article approved if they convince readers that their results are relevant from a scientific point of view with what already exists in the academic environment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have considered all my suggestions and comments and have corrected the text. Have no more comments. Wish you all the best.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered my questions. Congratulations.