Energy Efficient Underlaid D2D Communication for 5G Applications
, Suresh Penchala 1, Bashir Salah 3,*, Waqas Saleem 4, G. Sateesh Kumar 5 and Amira Sayed A. Aziz 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors proposed the modified derivative algorithm for energy-efficient under-laid D2D communications. For better paper quality, the reviewer highlights the following comments:
1. The current manuscript didn't reveal the differences between the modified derivative version and the conventional derivative version. The authors need to clarify the novelties of the modified version, and emphasize the merits. Especially, the authors need to verify the superiority of the modified version over the conventional version analytically.
2. As the authors indicated, there are lots of methods including [9, 10, 15 ~ 20, 24] for maximum energy efficiency. Analytically and empirically, the authors need to verify why their approach is superior to those methods.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
- The abstract is not well written and the reviewer has no knowledge of what have been done in this paper and the contributions. The authors should firstly introduce the background and motivations. Then, the detailed optimization problem should be referred instead of “the non-convex problem”. Besides, the reviewer cannot get any useful information from the sentence “The optimization problem is formulated with derivative algorithm and proposed modified derivative algorithm”.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [Page 1, 4 and 5]
- At the beginning of the introduction part, the background of D2D communication is not clearly introduced, which should be improved.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [Introduction, Page 1]
- As the key word, the following recent works in advanced wireless techniques field [R1] and energy efficiency optimization field [R2] should be introduced to highlight the state-of-art of this paper:
[R1] “Refracting RIS aided hybrid satellite-terrestrial relay networks: Joint beamforming design and optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, early access, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3155711.
[R2] “Secure and energy efficient transmission for RSMA-based cognitive satellite-terrestrial networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 251-255, Feb. 2021.
Response: As per your comment, References are included in reference no 38 and 39
- It is suggested to use past tence to introduce the existing works.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated and the entire paper grammar corrections have been completed.
- The motivations and contributions are not introduced.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [section 1 and 2, Page 1 and 3]
- The resolution of figure 1 and 2 are too low.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [section 2, figure 1(page 3) and section 3,figure 2( Page 6)]
- In simulations part, “figure. 3” and “figure. 4” should be revised as “figure X” or “Fig. X
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [section 4, figure 3(page 7) and figure 4(Page 8)]
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
You have proposed a modified derivative algorithm to optimize the energy efficiency of the entire cellular network underlaid with device-to-device communication. It is interesting, here is my review:
- The methodology is not clear.
- The algorithm proposed must consider more rel parameters of battery performance.
- The explanations figures are not clear, improve them.
- The paper has many grammar errors.
- The conclusions are poor.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 Comments
- The methodology is not clear.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [section 2(Page 4), section 3(page 5)]
- The algorithm proposed must consider more rel parameters of battery performance.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [ section 3 , page 5]
- The explanations figures are not clear, improve them.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated. [Section 4 , all figures from 3 to 9 are explained and improved]
- The paper has many grammar errors.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated and entire paper the grammar corrections have been completed.
- The conclusions are poor.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated. [Section 6(Page 14) conclusions updated]
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3 Comments
- The current manuscript didn't reveal the differences between the modified derivative version and the conventional derivative version. The authors need to clarify the novelties of the modified version, and emphasize the merits. Especially, the authors need to verify the superiority of the modified version over the conventional version analytically.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [section 2(Page 4), section 3(page 5)]
- As the authors indicated, there are lots of methods including [9, 10, 15 ~ 20, 24] for maximum energy efficiency. Analytically and empirically, the authors need to verify why their approach is superior to those methods.
Response: As per your comment, the article has been corrected and updated [section 2(Page 4), section 3(page 5) and section 6( page 14) ]
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded to the reviewer's comments well.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your positive comments in the second round.
The comments from reviewer (in the first round) were helpful in improving the quality of the article.
Once again thank you very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
You have not made substantial changes.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
The reviewer asked the below given questions in the first round of review. Responses to all queries of the reviewer were provided in details. We again worked on the questions of the reviewer and refined our previous responses. The reviewer is requested to please write clearly the questions from his/her side, once we know the weaknesses still present in the manuscript, it will definitely be improved. The previous question (round 1) on which we have worked again have been rewritten below with responses.
Comment 1: The methodology is not clear.
Response 1: As per the reviewer comment, the article has been again corrected and updated [section 2 and 3(Page 4 and 5)]
Comment 2: The algorithm proposed must consider more real parameters of battery performance.
Response 2: The article has been corrected and updated [section 3(page 5), table 2(page 9), table 3 (page 10)]
Comments 3: The explanations figures are not clear, improve them.
Response 3: As per the reviewer comment, the article has been corrected and updated. [Section 4, all figures from 3 to 9 are explained and improved]
Comment 4: The paper has many grammar errors.
Response 4: As per the reviewer comment, the article has been corrected and updated and entire paper the grammar corrections have been completed.
Comment 5: The conclusions are poor.
Response 5: As per the reviewer comment, the article has been corrected and updated. [Section 6(Page 14) conclusions updated]
However, it is requested that if still there are any specific queries from the reviewer side, it can be shared with us. Once we know, we will prepare responses properly.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have well addressed all my concerns, no further comment.
Author Response
All authors are very thankful to Reviewer No. 3
The comments were helpful and improved our article.
Thank you very much.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
It is much better.
