Review Reports
by
- Lu Lu 1,†,
- Chao Liu 1,† and
- Jinhao Chen 2,†
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Moustafa Nasralla Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Farhan Amin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Some text appears to be unnecessarily bold, please make correction. If it is done on purpose please describe the reason in response report.
2. May be a line or two should be added in introduction about the reinforcement learning. Some basic description is necessary where it appears for the first time.
3. The description of 6G technology has been written well, but I would recommend extending the part which addresses the evolution of cellular generations. A few lines can be taken from the below papers which explicitly describe this evolution:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5882
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9861699
4. Similarly relevant citations on the concept of AI in 6G can be added, e.g.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138912862031207X
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9922093
5. Fig. 2 text is too small, increase the font size to improve the readability.
6. The paper mentions integrated satellite terrestrial networks, how is it different from hybrid satellite terrestrial networks? Are hybrid satellite terrestrial networks a part of 6G?
7. Please check the caption of figures and see if it is according to the format. There is no need to capitalize the first letter of every word. For example Fig. 3.
8. Table 2, the headings should be revised and written properly.
9. Fig. 9, please increase the size for better visibility.
No comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In line number 86, enter the full name for the SBA acronym
2. The statement in the next sentence is quite strong and not entirely true: "The most important differences between the self-evolution 6G Core Network and the existing 5G one is that, the self-evolution paradigm allow the network to break the static architectures standardized by predefined protocols, and to explore arbitrary novel structures that might beyond the known forms of human expert knowledge." The 5G network also intends to break the static architectures standardized by predefined protocols and explore arbitrary novel structures that might go beyond the known forms of human expert knowledge. Of course, within the 6G network, using the AI mechanisms, it will be raised to a significantly higher level. That's why I would moderate the mentioned claim.
3. The introduction is quite long, and it would be good to make it more concise.
4. Please modify the Introduction and form the subsection Background.
5. In the Self-Evolution Experiment section, please include more details about the simulation environment.
The English should be checked and errors corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors have proposed an intelligent decision-making model for the self-evolution of 6G networks. The topic is very interesting. my comments are given as below.
* Authors are suggested to reduce the introduction section currently it is very long. The introduction section should be concise and to the point. It comprised of summarization of recent studies, your contribution, the benefits of your research, and your motivation also.
* The paper organization is missing at the end of the introduction section. For example; in a section we reviewed the state of the art etc.
* Figure 6 explains the architecture of your proposed study. it is requested to explain in detail.
* The figure size in the paper are not equal. It should be equal in the entire manuscript.
* Algorithm 1 explanation is required. Especially the parameters that are used in this figure.
* Did you compare your results with the state of the art? If yes, please mention it in the figures.
*The deatils of simlaution enviroment should be mention in the results ssection.
* The future work should be mention in the conclusion section.
The english is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer 3 Report
authors have incorporated all necessary changes in the manuscript.
The English should be checked by Grammarly and check it for grammar, typos, and the spelling mistakes.