Comparison of Coverage-Prediction Models for Modern Mobile Radio Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript evaluates the performance of four propagation models (Egli, Okumura, Hata-Davidson, and Longley-Rice) in predicting signal propagation in the VHF and UHF bands. The manuscript is overall well-written and holds significant scientific importance. However, the presentation of the results is not done well and is very disadvantageous for readers to compare and understand. Therefore, I suggest that the authors substantially revise the figures in the article and add tables to facilitate readers. Below are my detailed suggestions:

1. Merge Figures 2-5 and Figures 6-9. These figures scattered throughout the article make it difficult for readers to compare.

2. Add two tables to show the average error between the predicted results of the four models and the actual results in the main and secondary test routes, respectively, to allow readers to quickly review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript—"Comparison of coverage prediction models for modern mobile radio networks" evaluates four propagation models - Egli, Okumura, Hata-Davidson, and Longley-Rice - for predicting signal propagation in VHF and UHF bands with measured data 40 km long route around Ljubljana and its surroundings areas. The comparative study can be publishable. However, I recommend the answer to the following questions.

1.      In bullets, the authors should mention the key contribution and explain the research gap.

2.      What is the significance of the considered measurement site, considering the importance? Is the scenario typical and general?

3.      The manuscript lacks any mathematics about the considered models. The manuscript should be self-constraint to understand its contents.

4.      Is it possible to include how the received power was measured and the typical data in the manuscript?

5.      The authors should include measurement equipment pictures and snapshots taken during the measurement process.

6.      The channel structure of the measuring equipment can help better understand the measurement procedure (system block diagram). What sort of antenna was used in the measurement process?

7.      Is there any data table associated with Figure 2—5, to help better understand.

This manuscript's English is comprehensible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript evaluates the performance of four propagation models in predicting signal propagation in the VHF and UHF bands. However, it lacks of experimental data and theoretical analysis, only a few existing electromagnetic propagation models are summarized. Therefore, I think this article is not suitable for publication in this journal.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The key contribution mentioned in the revised manuscript is not generalized. 

The manuscript is not written including the necessary descriptions that the results can be reproduced. However, I do not believe that the manuscript fulfills these requirements.

This manuscript's English is comprehensible. 

Author Response

1.The key contribution mentioned in the revised manuscript is not generalized. 

A1.Thank you for your thoughtful comment. To generalize the contributions, we have rewritten the introduction, from which the contributions are now clear. We have also rewritten the beginning of the abstract to better highlight the contributions. In addition, the abstract is modified with statement as “Based on a meticulous comparison, we present valuable insights into the strengths and limita-tions of these models, enhancing coverage-prediction methodologies for evolving mobile radio networks.”. Please see page no. 1.

2. The manuscript is not written including the necessary descriptions that the results can be reproduced. However, I do not believe that the manuscript fulfills these requirements.

A2. Thank you for the very constructive comment. We have published the research data in lso.fe.uni-lj.si with the aim that the results can be reproduced/verified by some other researchers. We included that in the article, both in the text and as a references [1, 176]. We believe that this makes our manuscript sufficient for these requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Please add some experimental results and comparative analysis results to further improve and concretize your experimental results and conclusions;

2. Please further improve your paper layout and English presentation.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

1. Please add some experimental results and comparative analysis results to further improve and concretize your experimental results and conclusions;

A1. Thank you very much for the very valuable comment. We have published all our experimental data so that researchers can do comparative analyses later. The address where the data are stored can be found in the article. Please see reference 16 and 17 (page 17).

2. Please further improve your paper layout and English presentation.

Thank you for the comment, which will improve the readability of our article. To improve the layout, we have rewritten the introduction, added a paragraph describing the structure of the article, and made some improvements throughout the article. All changes are highlighted in blue. The article was also proofread by a native English speaker. The certificate is in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have mentioned that the measurement path contains urban, suburban, and rural areas. But they did not mention how these parts are distributed.

In the path loss figures, the x-axis parameter is not mentioned.

Only the VHF and UHF frequency bands are mentioned. It is not mentioned what operating frequency bands they used in the experiment.

In the experiment, it seems that the measured data were one-time measured data. In that case, is it trustworthy to use one-time measured data to make a comment?

This manuscript's English is comprehensible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf