Review Reports - Cost–Benefit Analysis of WDM-PON Traffic Protection Schemes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

This paper addresses issues related to OPEX and CAPEX optimization in passive and partially hybrid fiber access network designs. A simple computational application is presented that can be used as a tool for cost-optimal fiber access network design. Calculation results are presented for simple models and those employing protective redundancy. Two types of topologies are used, primarily introduced in the fider-fiber section. Configurations with hardware redundancy are also included. These solutions are well-known in telecommunications and information technology. The reviewer believes that the presented results do not contribute anything new, and therefore the paper should not be classified as a scientific article, but rather as a review. In summary, the paper could be successfully published after a few minor corrections and extensions.

Detailed comments:

The paper was written in a readable manner, using clear technical language, but it is advisable to make a few minor corrections and extensions to improve its quality:

The degree of use the wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) in fiber optic network design has been largely omitted. This should be much more clearly highlighted by providing possible configurations of WDM-PON solutions, and should also be factored into the CAPEX.
There is no separation of customers into residential and business, using ONUs/ONTs delivering non-guaranteed and guaranteed (SLA) traffic. SLA is defined only as a parameter guaranteeing service continuity. Link quality, priorities, and price differentiation must be considered here. This has not been highlighted.
To demonstrate the novelty of the proposed application, it is necessary to add elements that will improve the use of the PON network, primarily in terms of OPEX. For example, the network's multiple uses for broadband connectivity for business customers who, for example, will require 5G fronthaul connections. Focusing on the number of subscribers is not future-proof, as FTTH is already present almost everywhere. A good algorithm should also indicate the possibilities of in-band and out-of-band connection of as-yet-unknown new technologies.
The "Materials and Methods" chapter should primarily contain a description of the methods used in the calculations and simulations, not just a list of tools and their applications.
The discussion of the results must be significantly expanded, providing specific values and including references and comparisons of methods and techniques. The presented description of the results is general and too obvious. The proposed calculation method must be distinguished from those mentioned at the beginning of the paper.
Other minor but important comments:
1. Please start numbering chapters from number 1.
2. The text of the thesis needs to be reviewed in case of unsuccessful translations by translators and chatbots, for example, by eliminating repetitions after abbreviations (e.g., lines 160 or 172).
3. Ring is not an abbreviation, so it cannot be written as "RING."
4. Figures 1-4 are of low quality, so they must be embedded as vector files, e.g., as metafiles.
5. Abbreviations appearing in figures must be expanded immediately after them in the text, not just in the table of contents at the end of the document.
6. Formula numbers are incorrectly positioned.
7. There are no references to numbered formulae in the text – this needs to be sorted out.
8. It is unclear which calculations were based on which information – see subsection g.

Author Response

This paper addresses issues related to OPEX and CAPEX optimization in passive and partially hybrid fiber access network designs. A simple computational application is presented that can be used as a tool for cost-optimal fiber access network design. Calculation results are presented for simple models and those employing protective redundancy. Two types of topologies are used, primarily introduced in the fiber-fiber section. Configurations with hardware redundancy are also included. These solutions are well-known in telecommunications and information technology. The reviewer believes that the presented results do not contribute to anything new, and therefore the paper should not be classified as a scientific article, but rather as a review. In summary, the paper could be successfully published after a few minor corrections and extensions.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s opinion, comments and remarks. Detailed responses are provided below. Changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted (a blue color). We'd like to thank the respected Reviewer for his comments and remarks that make this paper better. In our opinion, the novelty of this paper is represented by integrating CAPEX/OPEX with RBD diagrams of traffic protection schemes for advanced WDM-PON networks.

Detailed comments:

The paper was written in a readable manner, using clear technical language, but it is advisable to make a few minor corrections and extensions to improve its quality:

The degree of use the wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) in fiber optic network design has been largely omitted. This should be much more clearly highlighted by providing possible configurations of WDM-PON solutions and should also be factored into the CAPEX.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments. In this paper, the WDM degree is not the main goal. For precising, we added the new reference (the ITU-T G.694.1 standard) where DWDM systems are defined not only for using in passive optical networks.

There is no separation of customers into residential and business, using ONUs/ONTs delivering non-guaranteed and guaranteed (SLA) traffic. SLA is defined only as a parameter guaranteeing service continuity. Link quality, priorities, and price differentiation must be considered here. This has not been highlighted.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments. In this paper, the SLA is not the main goal. From a viewpoint of cost-benefit analysis, the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between network operators and customers is involved in penalties for service outages (subsection 4.2.)

To demonstrate the novelty of the proposed application, it is necessary to add elements that will improve the use of the PON network, primarily in terms of OPEX. For example, the network's multiple uses for broadband connectivity for business customers who, for example, will require 5G fronthaul connections. Focusing on the number of subscribers is not future-proof, as FTTH is already present almost everywhere. A good algorithm should also indicate the possibilities of in-band and out-of-band connection of as-yet-unknown new technologies.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments. In this paper, all necessary network elements considered for deployment of advanced WDM-PON traffic protection schemes are introduced. There are no other elements that improve their use in terms of OPEX, either yet-unknown new technologies. The novelty of the proposed applications (Subsection 3.4, Figure 4) can be considered as future-proof thanks to focusing on many reference parameters (Tables 2 and 3, Table 4).

The "Materials and Methods" chapter should primarily contain a description of the methods used in the calculations and simulations, not just a list of tools and their applications.

Response: The Section "Materials and Methods" is primarily oriented on the GenAI tools and their use in the manuscript. A description of the methods used in the calculations and simulations is introduced in following Sections 4 and 5 in details.

The discussion of the results must be significantly expanded, providing specific values and including references and comparisons of methods and techniques. The description presented of the results is general and too obvious. The proposed calculation method must be distinguished from those mentioned at the beginning of the paper.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

Other minor but important comments:

Please start numbering chapters from number 1.

Response: The comment is accepted; chapters are re-numbered.

The text of the thesis needs to be reviewed in case of unsuccessful translations by translators and chatbots, for example, by eliminating repetitions after abbreviations (e.g., lines 160 or 172).

Response: The comment is accepted; repetitions of abbreviations are removed.

Ring is not an abbreviation, so it cannot be written as "RING."

Response: The comment is accepted; the term “ring” is used in the manuscript.

Figures 1-4 are of low quality, so they must be embedded as vector files, e.g., as metafiles.

Response: The comment is accepted; Figures 1-4 are realized in png format with 600 dpi.

Abbreviations appearing in figures must be expanded immediately after them in the text, not just in the table of contents at the end of the document.

Response: The comment is accepted; abbreviations appearing in figures are explained immediately in the previous related text paragraph.

Formula numbers are incorrectly positioned.

Response: The comment is accepted; formula numbers are corrected.

There are no references to numbered formulae in the text – this needs to be sorted out.
It is unclear which calculations were based on which information – see subsection g.

Response: Both comments are accepted; numbered formulae are referenced in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a cost-benefit analysis of various traffic protection schemes in WDM-PON architectures, including both Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and RING configurations. The authors introduce a simulation tool, the WDM-PON Network Cost Evaluator, which extends prior reliability-focused frameworks by integrating CAPEX and OPEX modeling. The study provides comprehensive analytical formulations, detailed parameter tables, and simulation-based comparisons that are valuable for network operators evaluating economic and reliability trade-offs. However, this model lacks more in-depth demonstration through actual deployment case studies. Meanwhile, discussions on the model's scalability, uncertainty handling, and comparison benchmarks should be added or subtracted to further enhance scientific contributions:

It is suggested that the manuscript be polished by professional technical English editors. Focus on refining the introduction, algorithm description, and experimental analysis to ensure accurate terminology and clear logic, so readers can easily grasp the research background, technical approach, and key conclusions.
The paper’s novelty claim—integrating CAPEX/OPEX with RBD-based reliability evaluation—represents an incremental extension. To enhance the scientific contribution, the authors should discussing how the proposed evaluator differs from upon tools like Markov-model-based frameworks would strengthen the originality argument.
The analytical models depend on numerous cost and reliability parameters (Tables 2–3), but their sensitivity or uncertainty is not analyzed. Since cost values and repair rates can vary significantly across vendors and regions, a sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo simulation would better demonstrate the model’s robustness. Without this, conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness may appear deterministic and context-dependent.
Although the proposed simulation tool provides clear outputs for CAPEX, OPEX, and TCO, its validation is limited to theoretical calculations in Microsoft Excel. It would be beneficial to include a comparative validation using field data or previously published cost model. Demonstrating how the model predictions align with real deployment data would significantly increase the paper’s credibility and practical value.
The manuscript is generally well organized but could benefit from improved balance between descriptive and analytical content. Sections 2–4 devote extensive text to definitions and formula derivations, while the Discussion (Section 6) provides limited critical analysis. The authors might condense the mathematical derivations and expand the interpretation of results—highlighting implications for network operators, scalability trends, and policy considerations in future F5G and 6G network planning.
In order to improve the relevant background of the article, the paper is worthy of reference:

[a] An interpretable deep learning framework for intrusion detection in industrial Internet of Things[J]. Internet of Things, 2025: 101681

In summary, the proposed framework makes valuable contributions , but addressing the above issues will significantly improve the manuscript's rigor and clarity. Major Revision is required before acceptance.

Author Response

We are very pleased to have received Reviewer’s comments and remarks. Detailed responses are provided below. Changes made to the article are highlighted (a blue color). We'd like to thank the esteemed Reviewer for his comments and remarks that make this paper better. In our opinion, the novelty of this paper is represented by integrating CAPEX/OPEX with RBD diagrams of traffic protection schemes for advanced WDM-PON networks.

It is suggested that the manuscript be polished by professional technical English editors. Focus on refining the introduction, algorithm description, and experimental analysis to ensure accurate terminology and clear logic, so readers can easily grasp the research background, technical approach, and key conclusions.

Response: The comment is accepted; based on this recommendation, we realized extensive English revisions of substantial parts in the manuscript. We eliminated typing errors and some inaccuracies. We also reformulated any sentences, expressions and formulations to be more accurate. In the revised version of the manuscript, many sentences were shortened and re-written. Definitions of some technical terms were complemented.

The paper’s novelty claim—integrating CAPEX/OPEX with RBD-based reliability evaluation—represents an incremental extension. To enhance the scientific contribution, the authors should discuss how the proposed evaluator differs from upon tools like Markov-model-based frameworks would strengthen the originality argument.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

The analytical models depend on numerous cost and reliability parameters (Tables 2–3), but their sensitivity or uncertainty is not analyzed. Since cost values and repair rates can vary significantly across vendors and regions, a sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo simulation would better demonstrate the model’s robustness. Without this, conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness may appear deterministic and context-dependent.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

Although the proposed simulation tool provides clear outputs for CAPEX, OPEX, and TCO, its validation is limited to theoretical calculations in Microsoft Excel. It would be beneficial to include a comparative validation using field data or previously published cost model. Demonstrating how the model predictions align with real deployment data would significantly increase the paper’s credibility and practical value.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

The manuscript is generally well organized but could benefit from improved balance between descriptive and analytical content. Sections 2–4 devote extensive text to definitions and formula derivations, while the Discussion (Section 6) provides limited critical analysis. The authors might condense the mathematical derivations and expand the interpretation of results—highlighting implications for network operators, scalability trends, and policy considerations in future F5G and 6G network planning.

In the manuscript, a theme is very extensive and complex (WDM-based passive optical networks, traffic protection schemes, reliability block diagrams, CAPEX/OPEX, …). So, it is sometimes difficult to find a simplified verbalization without loss of the meaning. For expansion the interpretation of results, the new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added.

In order to improve the relevant background of the article, the paper is worthy of reference:

[a] An interpretable deep learning framework for intrusion detection in industrial Internet of Things[J]. Internet of Things, 2025: 101681

Response: The comment is accepted; the new reference is added into the Introduction.

In summary, the proposed framework makes valuable contributions, but addressing the above issues will significantly improve the manuscript's rigor and clarity. Major Revision is required before acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article claims a new contribution by “integrating CAPEX/OPEX with RBD” (lines 92–105), but the methodology and concepts have already been used in [13]; the extension consists only in adding a cost component to an existing tool. A clearer argumentation of the degree of originality is recommended.

The use of Microsoft Excel with VBA (lines 368–370) is acceptable for the prototype, but insufficient as an advanced research tool; details about validation, verification of results and possible limitations of numerical accuracy are missing.

All results are purely simulated; there is no verification on a real data set, an industrial case study or a comparison with empirical measurements.

Figures 5 and 6 the simulation interface is illustrative, but scientifically unclear; it should be supplemented with descriptions of input and output parameters, reference values and uncertainties.

Figure 4 correctly represents the RBD structure, but does not specify how to obtain the reliability of each block or the data sources for failure rates; numerical parameters are missing.

Table 2 and Table 3 cost values (€/km, €/port) are taken from sources [24,25], but the year and economic conditions are not specified; an adjustment for inflation or a sensitivity analysis would be necessary.

Table 5 absolute values for CAPEX, OPEX and TCO are provided, but the simulation parameters (exact number of ONUs, fiber lengths) are not specified for each scenario; reproducibility is limited.

Scalability analysis (Figure 8) – the idea is useful, but the curves should be accompanied by a description of the mathematical model used (e.g., cost/subscriber function).

The article does not explore the variation of results when changing energy costs, SLA penalties or lifetime (Y in equation 10).

No numerical comparison with results from cited literature is included (e.g., [10] or [20]); only a narrative mention.

The graphs are simple and correct, but the units on the axes are not uniformly indicated (sometimes € or the number of subscribers are missing).

The “WDM-PON Network Cost Evaluator” tool is a useful extension for planners, but does not represent a significant methodological advance; the added value is more didactic than scientific.

The conclusions are coherent, but repeat ideas already expressed in the introduction; a more explicit “Limitations and Future Work” subsection regarding the extension towards experimental validation or AI integration would be useful.

Reference numbering and formatting are correct, but some links repeat the same address (e.g. [5] is listed twice).

There is an inconsistency between section 1 (AI used for writing) and Acknowledgments (AI not used). This contradiction should be resolved for editorial transparency.

Line 15 – the wording “passive optical networks without active elements” is redundant.

Line 38 – grammatical error: “with only modest the CAPEX increase” should be corrected to “with only a modest CAPEX increase”.

Line 95 – the expression “traffic protection scheme scenarios” is redundant; “traffic protection schemes” is recommended.

Line 118 – the expression “prepared and created” is tautological; it is recommended to use a single verb.

Line 127 – the comma before “and readability” is missing.

Line 143 – “each ONU unit” is redundant; “each ONU” is correct.

Line 157 – “passive Arrayed Waveguide Grating (AWG)” is redundant; AWG is implicitly passive.

Line 168 – the term “resiliency” should be replaced with “resilience” for academic coherence.

Line 181 – missing comma before “originally defined for TDM-PON networks”.

Line 204 – “OLT terminal” is redundant; correct “OLT”.

Line 247 – missing citation or justification for the statement about the advantages of RBD; reference to a source is recommended.

Line 272 – the phrase “non-threatening detection” does not make technical sense; “efficient fault detection” is recommended.

Line 339 – the sentence “can be expressed as seen” is incomplete; it should be “as shown in Eq. (10)”.

Line 369 – “Microsoft Excel environment” can be simplified to “Microsoft Excel”.

Line 419 – “capital costs” should be singular: “capital cost”.

Line 486 – the sentence is too long and cumbersome; shortening is recommended for clarity.

Line 511 – redundancy through repetition of “network architectures”; condensation recommended.

Line 548 – contradiction between statements regarding use of GenAI; should be worded consistently with line 126.

Author Response

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

All results are purely simulated; there is no verification on a real data set, an industrial case study or a comparison with empirical measurements.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

Figures 5 and 6 the simulation interface is illustrative, but scientifically unclear; it should be supplemented with descriptions of input and output parameters, reference values and uncertainties.

Response: Figures 5 and 6 present simulation interfaces of the WDM-PON Network Cost Evaluator tool for better presentation. Descriptions of input parameter and reference values is introduced in previous text paragraphs of the Section 5.

Figure 4 correctly represents the RBD structure but does not specify how to obtain the reliability of each block or the data sources for failure rates; numerical parameters are missing.

Response: The functionality and reliability of RBD diagrams were proved and verified in previously published works - references [14, 25].

Response: Cost values are taken from the source – now [27], that was cited 2025-10-18.

Table 5 absolute values for CAPEX, OPEX and TCO are provided, but the simulation parameters (exact number of ONUs, fiber lengths) are not specified for each scenario; reproducibility is limited.

Response: Simulation parameters (exact number of ONUs, fiber lengths) are specified for each scenario and presented in Table 4 for simple reproducibility and possible comparison.

Scalability analysis (Figure 8) – the idea is useful, but the curves should be accompanied by a description of the mathematical model used (e.g., cost/subscriber function).

Response: A description of the mathematical model used for the scalability analysis (Figure 8) is added into the related text paragraph.

The article does not explore the variation of results when changing energy costs, SLA penalties or lifetime (Y in equation 10).

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

No numerical comparison with results from cited literature is included (e.g., [10] or [20]); only a narrative mention.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

The graphs are simple and correct, but the units on the axes are not uniformly indicated (sometimes € or the number of subscribers are missing).

Response: The units on the axes are corrected and complemented.

The “WDM-PON Network Cost Evaluator” tool is a useful extension for planners but does not represent a significant methodological advance; the added value is more didactic than scientific.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

The conclusions are coherent but repeat ideas already expressed in the introduction; a more explicit “Limitations and Future Work” subsection regarding the extension towards experimental validation or AI integration would be useful.

Response: The new subsection "Research Directions and Future Challenges" is added into the Section “Conclusion”. In this subsection, Reviewer’s comments are addressed with more details.

Reference numbering and formatting are correct, but some links repeat the same address (e.g. [5] is listed twice).

Response: The comment is accepted; repetitions of links are removed.

There is an inconsistency between section 1 (AI used for writing) and Acknowledgments (AI not used). This contradiction should be resolved for editorial transparency.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s opinion. After reading the comment, there is a misunderstanding probably. Just to be sure, we re-formulate Acknowledgments for removing inconsistency.

Line 15 – the wording “passive optical networks without active elements” is redundant.

Response: The comment is accepted; the word “passive” is removed.

Line 38 – grammatical error: “with only modest the CAPEX increase” should be corrected to “with only a modest CAPEX increase”.

Response: The comment is accepted; the sentence is corrected.

Line 95 – the expression “traffic protection scheme scenarios” is redundant; “traffic protection schemes” is recommended.

Response: The comment is accepted; the recommended expression is applied.

Line 118 – the expression “prepared and created” is tautological; it is recommended to use a single verb.

Response: The comment is accepted; the single verb “created” is used.

Line 127 – the comma before “and readability” is missing.

Response: The comment is accepted; the comma is added where necessary.

Line 143 – “each ONU unit” is redundant; “each ONU” is correct.

Response: The comment is accepted; the word “unit” is removed.

Line 157 – “passive Arrayed Waveguide Grating (AWG)” is redundant; AWG is implicitly passive.

Response: The comment is accepted; the word “passive” is removed.

Line 168 – the term “resiliency” should be replaced with “resilience” for academic coherence.

Response: The comment is accepted; the term “resiliency” is used.

Line 181 – missing comma before “originally defined for TDM-PON networks”.

Response: The comment is accepted; the comma is added where necessary.

Line 204 – “OLT terminal” is redundant; correct “OLT”.

Response: The comment is accepted; the word “terminal” is removed.

Line 247 – missing citation or justification for the statement about the advantages of RBD; reference to a source is recommended.

Response: The functionality and reliability of RBD diagrams were proved and verified in previously published works – now references [14, 25].

Line 272 – the phrase “non-threatening detection” does not make technical sense; “efficient fault detection” is recommended.

Response: The comment is accepted; the recommended phrase is applied.

Line 339 – the sentence “can be expressed as seen” is incomplete; it should be “as shown in Eq. (10)”.

Response: The comment is accepted; the sentence is completed as recommended.

Line 369 – “Microsoft Excel environment” can be simplified to “Microsoft Excel”.

Response: The comment is accepted; the word “environment” is removed.

Line 419 – “capital costs” should be singular: “capital cost”.

Response: The comment is accepted; the term “capital cost” is used.

Line 486 – the sentence is too long and cumbersome; shortening is recommended for clarity.

Response: The comment is accepted; the sentence is divided and shortened for clarity.

Line 511 – redundancy through repetition of “network architectures”; condensation recommended.

Response: The comment is accepted; the redundancy is eliminated.

Line 548 – contradiction between statements regarding use of GenAI; should be worded consistently with line 126.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s opinion. After reading the comment, there is a misunderstanding probably. Just to be sure, we re-formulate Acknowledgments for removing contradiction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still gaps in the reflections to the comments presented in the previous review:

In relation to point 3)

The reviewer still does not see any significant novelties in the paper - an almost rejection remark.

In relation to point 4):

“Response: The Section "Materials and Methods" is primarily oriented on the GenAI tools and their use in the manuscript. A description of the methods used in the calculations and simulations is introduced in following Sections 4 and 5 in details.”

So please organize this so that the components that should be in this chapter are in another. Please do so.

In relation to point 6d):

Figures 1-6 are still of low quality, so they must be embedded as vector files, e.g., as metafiles or bitmaps with lowest compression. It should be added that the quality of figures 5 and 6 (bitmaps) has deteriorated in the new version of the paper.

In relation to point 6gh):

Formulae must be referenced where they are used (e.g. in calculation/summation results), not before they are inserted into the document.

Author Response

There are still gaps in the reflections to the comments presented in the previous review:

In relation to point 3)

The reviewer still does not see any significant novelties in the paper - an almost rejection remark.

In relation to point 4):

So please organize this so that the components that should be in this chapter are in another. Please do so.

Response: The Section "Materials and Methods" is markedly expanded. In new paragraphs, significant novelties in the paper are emphasized. Simultaneously, related methods used in the calculations and simulations are summarized.

In relation to point 6d):

Response: The comment is accepted; Figures 1-6 are repetitively realized in the png format with 600 dpi. Also, original files are uploaded into the Susy system for better processing.

In relation to point 6gh):

Formulae must be referenced where they are used (e.g. in calculation/summation results), not before they are inserted into the document.

Response: The Section "The WDM-PON Network Cost Evaluator" is expanded. In a new paragraph, a specification of used formulas in the tool is improved. Simultaneously, concrete formulas for specific selection are present in Subsection 5.1.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s opinion, comments and remarks. Changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted (a red color). We'd like to thank the respected Reviewer for his comments and remarks that make this paper better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has resolved my doubts and I think it can be published.

Author Response

The author has resolved my doubts and I think it can be published.

We'd like to thank the esteemed and respected Reviewer for his comments and remarks that make our paper better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The narrative thread has some interruptions and it seems like the narrative is lost, especially between the methodology and what was achieved, there should be more emphasis on this to give clarity to the manuscript.

Another important and extremely obvious aspect is the way the figures look, many of them are not of high quality, suffer in terms of clarity and look pixelated.

The contributions chapter must highlight clear aspects that have been achieved and developed in relation to other studies or research in this direction. Try to improve.

Author Response

Another important and extremely obvious aspect is the way the figures look, many of them are not of high quality, suffer in terms of clarity and look pixelated.

Response: The comment is accepted; Figures 1-6 are repetitively realized in the png format with 600 dpi. Also, original files are uploaded into the Susy system for better processing.

The contributions chapter must highlight clear aspects that have been achieved and developed in relation to other studies or research in this direction. Try to improve.

Response: The Section "Conclusions" is markedly expanded. In a new paragraph, significant novelty and uniqueness in the paper are emphasized. Simultaneously, aspects that have been achieved and developed are highlighted. Also, a relation to other studies or research in this direction is explained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this paper have addressed most of the comments raised in the previous review. New elements discussed in the study have been somewhat emphasized. Some figures still require quality improvements. The reviewer believes that the authors will work diligently to address all of these shortcomings in the final version.

Author Response

The authors of this paper have addressed most of the comments raised in the previous review.

New elements discussed in the study have been somewhat emphasized.

Response: The comment is too general; we emphasized all important elements and parts discussed in the study.

Some figures still require quality improvements.

Response: The comment is still too general; we realized Figure 4 once more in the png format with 600 dpi. And, all original files are uploaded into the Susy system for better processing.

The reviewer believes that the authors will work diligently to address all of these shortcomings in the final version.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments. Changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted (a red color). We hope that any concrete remarks of the respected Reviewer were accommodated in this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf