Multi-Round Auction-Based Resource Allocation in Multi-Access Edge Computing Assisted Satellite Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper suggests an auction based resource allocation scheme in satellite networks in an ocean area with the aim of making best use of the satellite services for diverse information consumers.

The paper is nice and I enjoyed reading it; however, I have several concerns:

1. In equation 1, the authors explain only the meaning of the letters. They should also explain the logic of the equation.

2. in equation 4, "i belongs to M" should be under the Sigma symbol.

3. Equation 5 and equation 6 are actually the same equation. The only alteration is the on/off. Please combine the equations. It will make your point more understandable.

4. Algorithm 1 is long; yet it has such a short explanation. Please provide a more detailed explanation.

5. The equations and the results seem to be detached. Please explain how you have designed the experiments based on the theoretical background.

6. In Li, W.; Li, Z.; Jiang, W.; Chen, Q.; Zhu, G. and Wang, J., "A New Spatial Filtering Algorithm for Noisy and Missing GNSS Position Time Series Using Weighted Expectation Maximization Principal Component Analysis: A Case Study for Regional GNSS Network in Xinjiang Province", Remote Sensors, 2022, Vol. 14, paper no. 1295. Available online at: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/5/1295 and also in Rakhmanov, A.and Wiseman, Y., "Compression of GNSS Data with the Aim of Speeding up Communication to Autonomous Vehicles", Remote Sensors, 2023, vol.15, paper no. 2165. Available online at: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/8/2165 , the authors suggest filtering out some of the positioning information. I assume that not everything can be filtered out; however, I would encourage the author to cite this paper and explain what filtering can be done in their work.

Some of the sentences should be corrected like this sentence: "In recent years, satellite mobile communication system has become an indispensable part of mobile communication field" which should be "In recent years, satellite mobile communication systems have become an indispensable part of the mobile communication field".

Author Response

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for spending time reviewing our manuscript and giving specific positive comments on our work. Those comments given by the reviewer can help us improve the quality of this paper. Hence, based on the recommendations, we have revised our manuscript accordingly. Our point-to-point response to each comment of the reviewer is given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the resource allocation problem in a multi-user and multi satellite scenario, and an online multi-round auction mechanism for service satisfaction maximization is proposed for the service matching relationship between satellites and users and to determine the final payment price.

This topic is interesting and actual. It was debated in many papers and the novelty of this approach consists mainly in the manner the authors treated commercial aspects of heterogeneity of satellites users vs the limited resources of satellites.

The authors add to the subject area a model of an online multi-round auction based resource allocation (OMARA) approach for resource trading between satellites and users, where satellites are the resources sellers and users are the related resources buyers.

Authors should add to the paper technical considerations regarding the possibility to implement in reality the computer simulations of their model.

Conclusions are not relevant as authors wrote “…the method proposed in this paper can improve the service satisfaction of resource providers (satellites) in the overall system and increase the number of service users as much as possible.” Question is what exactly means as much as possible?

Although the references are appropriate new articles related in literature should be added, as I stated below, see point 7.

I also recommend the authors to follow the next suggestions:

1.     Authors should add short article content at the end of the chapter Introduction.

2.     State of the art should be upgraded for revealing the technical novelty and originality of the proposed approach as well as the advantages vs disadvantages of it.

3.     All equations should be justified by references citations or by mathematical proofs.

4.     All equations should be labeled.

5.     Authors should explain the relations (5) and (6).

6.     Authors should mention in chapter Conclusion further development of their approach.

7.     Authors should add “fresh” references from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2013.

8.     Relevance to the journal is low, maybe this paper should be published by an economic/commercial journal.

9.     An English native speaker should correct the grammar and spelling.

An English native speaker should correct the grammar and spelling.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for spending time reviewing our manuscript and giving specific positive comments on our work. Those comments given by the reviewer can help us improve the quality of this paper. Hence, based on the recommendations, we have revised our manuscript accordingly. Our point-to-point response to each comment of the reviewer is given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The title of the article is very interesting and presents results that may be of interest in future publication.

Despite the interest it arouses in the reader, the article suffers from some relevant shortcomings that the authors can find below:

1. The writing is very colloquial, nonconcrete and unscientific. I would recommend the authors to read the first sentence after the introduction "various countries have carried out studies on environmental monitoring", my question is which countries? Moreover, the aforementioned sentence does not present anything new as it fits in the “so what?”.

2. Second paragraph, again “in recent years, satellite mobile communication system has become an indispensable part of mobile communication field by virtue of its unique advantages.” Thus, the reader's question is: how recent? What do the authors mean by recent years? What part has become indispensable? What unique benefits? It is necessary to justify all comments in order to have a scientific essay. The issue in this regard continue along the text. 

3. I understood the research objectives, but missed a clear research question.

4. The references used in the article are scarce and in many cases outdated and/or incomplete. For example, it seems to me that reference 3 is incomplete. I suggest that authors follow the “Instructions for Authors” closely as it does not agree, note that just as an example the year is in bold. Instructions for Authors - https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/instructions. However, what concerns me most is the quality of the cited articles. It may also be useful to present a conceptual framework based on existing literature.

5. The conclusion is very short, I suggest focusing the conclusion on (1) contributions to theory, (2) contributions to practice, (3) limitations and (4) perspectives for future research.

Just minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for spending time reviewing our manuscript and giving specific positive comments on our work. Those comments given by the reviewer can help us improve the quality of this paper. Hence, based on the recommendations, we have revised our manuscript accordingly. Our point-to-point response to each comment of the reviewer is given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made a decent effort and the paper is certainly publishable so I would recommend accepting the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and effort in handling our original manuscript (electronics-2400189) titled “Multi-round Auction based Resource Allocation in Multi-access Edge Computing Assisted Satellite Networks”, and for all your insightful suggestions that helped us improve the quality of this paper. Those comments given by the reviewer can help us improve the quality of this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Now, this paper is suitable for publishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and effort in handling our original manuscript (electronics-2400189) titled “Multi-round Auction based Resource Allocation in Multi-access Edge Computing Assisted Satellite Networks”, and for all your insightful suggestions that helped us improve the quality of this paper. Those comments given by the reviewer can help us improve the quality of this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made some corrections, although I do not agree that the article still has the desired depth.

The article content lacks depth, as there are still many parts that need to be deepened. For example, the authors state that:

- "Recently, China, United Kingdom, and various countries have carried out studies on environmental monitoring, marine investigation, security, and rescue in territorial seas".

1. This sentence alone raises a series of questions:

What more relevant studies from China and the UK (?) and in which other countries?

2. Moreover, topics should be cited so readers have a clear sense of what the authors are referring to, for example "Recently, China, United Kingdom, and various countries have carried out studies on environmental monitoring [cite], marine investigation [cite], security [cite], and rescue in territorial seas[cite]".

Another example is the following sentence “With the increasing number of users devices in the sea, business types and business volume surge”. Thus, my question is: What businesses and to what extent has the turnover increased? Do the authors have business cases to present? 

The above issues are just a few that allow me to argue that the text of the article does not have enough depth for the Electronics Journal.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and effort in handling our original manuscript (electronics-2400189) titled “Multi-round Auction based Resource Allocation in Multi-access Edge Computing Assisted Satellite Networks”, and for all your insightful suggestions that helped us improve the quality of this paper. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript accordingly. Before moving onto a more detailed point-by-point response in the sequel, we have summarized all modifications as follows.

We have addressed the comments of the Editor and Reviewers. In the remainder of the response letter, we list the reviewers' comments with our responses. For each response, the modifications done in the manuscript are summarized in blue font. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I expected the authors to revise the entire text of the article, justifying their arguments with the existing literature. In the future, I suggest that authors always justify their choices based on empirical data or existing literature. While not completely satisfied, I think the authors have added some effort in the revision. Therefore, I believe that the article is in a position to be approved.

n.r.