Research on Performance Metrics and Environmental Conditions for 5G MIMO OTA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been revised accordingly. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

All the replies are to the previous comments of this reviewer which were addressed before. I do not have any further comment.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Performance comparison of environmental conditions and different figure of merits are very important parameters to determine which experimental method is appropriate in 5G MIMO OTA. In this paper TRMS comparisons between threshods 95%, 90% and 70% and the averaged TRMS as well as Variance and Peak-Null for UMa and UMi channel models, under 3GPP UE noise-limited environmental conditions and CTIA interference-limited environmental conditions have been made. Also, comparison between TRMS and MARSS prove that TRMS under UE noise-limited condition has a stronger ability to distinguish between good and bad performing DUTs than MARSS under CTIA interference limited condition. Also, authors show that Peak-Null can better reflect the difference between the 12 azimuth positions than Variance. An illustration of BS array response would add value to the paper. The paper is well written, interensting to readers and authors use a variety of experimental setup and in my point of view is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have highlighted the emerging and core issue, but still there are major issues to be fixed.

 

Reviews to Authors

• First letters in each work in the title must be capital such as, ‘Research on Performance Metrics and Environmental Conditions for 5G MIMO OTA’.
• Spell out each acronym the first time used in the body of the paper. Spell out acronyms in the Abstract by extending it.
• The abstract can be rewritten to be more meaningful. The authors should add more details about their final results in the abstract. Abstract should clarify what is exactly proposed (the technical contribution) and how the proposed approach is validated.
• What is the motivation of the proposed work?
• Introduction needs to explain the main contributions of the work clearer.
• The novelty of this paper is not clear. The difference between present work and previous Works should be highlighted.
• Authors must explain in detail the introduction section.
• Authors must develop the framework/architecture of the proposed methods
• There is need of flowchart and pseudocode of the proposed techniques
• Proposed methods should be compared with the state-of-the-art existing techniques
• Research gaps, objectives of the proposed work should be clearly justified.

To improve the Related Work and Introduction sections authors are highly recommended to consider these high-quality research works < Towards 5G-enabled Self Adaptive Green and Reliable Communication in Intelligent Transportation System>, <HARQ with chase-combining for bandwidth-efficient communication in MIMO wireless networks>

 

• English must be revised throughout the manuscript.
• Limitations and Highlights of the proposed methods must be addressed properly
• Experimental results are not convincing, so authors must give more results to justify their proposal.

Finally, paper needs major improvements

 

 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors are highly suggested to put the pseudocode and flowchart of the proposed method

Also, references section is weak, so it is highly recommended to consider the high quality manuscripts <5G-based Transmission Power Control Mechanism in Fog Computing for IoT Devices’, MDPI Sustainability,Vol.10, No.4, pp.1-17, April 2018>, and some more references upto 30. This, shall help authors to get insight about latest trends and developments in research field.

Propsoed method and its details are totally missing in the paper, so authors are highly suggested to add related work and propsoed method sections in the paper

Paper needs major changes 

 

 

Author Response

Dear editor,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have slightly revised the manyscript, still there are major comments to be fixed

1. Related Work section is missing, so authors are highly advised to put that section with at least 40 refs
2. Flowchart and pseudocode are missing, so authors can add these for the clarity and readability to readers
3. Refs section is weak, so authors are highly recommended to add these high quality works <5G-based Transmission Power Control Mechanism in Fog Computing for IoT Devices’, MDPI Sustainability,Vol.10, No.4, pp.1-17, April 2018> for strengthening Intro and related work sections
4. Paper length is short, so authors are highly recommended to extend the Intro section, add related work section, put refs at least upto 40 
5. Detailed explanation is required to experimental setup and discussion 

Paper needs major changes