Transitioning to Society 5.0 in Africa: Tools to Support ICT Infrastructure Sharing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Strengths:

The subject of the manuscript is very interesting and actual, the aim and purposes are clearly defined, the methodology is adequate to investigate the type of subject that is analysed and the results of the study are presented and discussed. Finally, conclusions and future research are presented.

Weaknesses:

The presentation of tables, figures and text should be improved. The lines have different spacing between lines. Also, figures 10, 11, 12 and 13 are not readable and it is very difficult to understand their contents;

The limitations of the study were not presented;

There are some problems with the numbering of the tables. Sometimes it appears in Arabic numerals as in line 434, sometimes in roman numbers as in line 463.

The references were not numbered in order of appearance in the text;

Reference 26 is missing and references 2, 18 and 24 were not mentioned in the text;

The label of the second column of table 2 is missing;

The label of the Y axis of figure 5 is missing. It is necessary to know the unit of this axis;

Replace “…to the environment [13] Which…” by “…to the environment [13], which…” in line 242.

 

Author Response

Point-by-point response has been uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, this paper give good evidence of building communication network in Nigeria, but I have two large problem with this paper:

• the paper is not in reality scientific paper, with some scientific goals, it more describe process of implementation of communication network in Nigeria. In African conditions it is important problem, but paper doesn't look as real scientific paper.
• In Abstract and introduction of paper you mentioned Society 5.0, but I didn't find in all article any evidence, that you are dealing with Society 5.0. Seems that it is add artificially to paper to increase its scientific reputation without any clear evidence. There is no literature analysis of Society 5.0 goals and also, this in paper is not analysed, how telecommunication network will help with this

Author Response

 point-by-point response has been uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity review this manuscript. The study attempts to optimise BTS positions by locations, with a view to reducing the total number of base transmission stations in Nigeria. Accordingly this reduction would offer sustainability benefits within the context by reducing the amount of the required fossil fuel consumption for the operation of the base stations. 

The statements are well articulated within this manuscript and there does not seem to be issues with English and communication. Nonetheless, there are some flaws with this piece of research which are highlighted below:

1. The references are generally dated. In the motivation section, the authors argue that the total number of BTS's in Nigeria is in the excess of 40000, where as the source used to substantiate the figure is 6 years old (Ref. 5). By conducting a desk search I came across figures as low as 21000 base stations in Nigeria in 2018. Therefore, I believe the background information, the motivation, and the literature review (in particular section 3) are relying on dated information, and therefore have to be updated, to make the arguments within the study legitimate,
2. The above issue exists in other sections (e.g. Table 2) where the information provided are also being dated i.e. I believe the same reference number 5 is used,
3. The tables to be recreated to match the publisher's styling requirement,
4. The optimisation algorithm does make sense, however the software used for data capture is not clearly discussed. Also you discuss dimension reduction within the mathematical outline of the algorithm (section 4), yet this was not covered anywhere within the experimental discussions for the case study. I would suggest that the authors make the methodology sections (4 and 5) clearer.
5. There is discussion section (5.5), however the paragraph within this section is not really a discussion. Again you would need to critically discuss your findings against the state of the art literature.

Thank you.

Author Response

 point-by-point response has been uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thanks for update, paper now looks more clear for me. In any case, till now I have certain concern. From your objectives:

1. To present arguments and evidence which identifies the current problems associated 104with the lack of BTS infrastructure sharing in Nigeria; 105
2. To identify the diesel consumption of BTS in Nigeria and related CO2emissions;106
3. To develop mathematical models and a related optimization and decision support 107tool to assist with mast co-location decisions involving BTS；
4. To apply the mathematical and optimization approaches developed to a case study 109to provide initial supporting evidence that colocation of BTS, if done appropriately using 110decision support tools, can reduce costs and CO2emissions while maintaining adequate network service in Nigeria

only points 3 and 4 are topic of your research. Points 1 and 2 are more review of existing information.

Then the review part is too long (Chapters 2 and Chapter 3) and your own work is a little hidden. I would like recommend to make parts 2 and 3 much shorter, move it into introduction and concentrate mainly on your experiment.

Author Response

Thank you for the positive appraisal of our initial revision, and for the useful suggestions. We have now modified the article objectives, condensed sections 2 and 3 and merged them. We are happy to consider further suggestions, as needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to re-review the work. I would also like to thank the authors to provide some responses and corrections within the work. Although the work is significantly improved, yet there are some further corrections needed:

 

1. The methodology, and results are clearer now, however, the quality of presentation is poor. The tables and images are blur, and some tables could be simply recreated to improve quality of presentation. There are also inconsistencies in the way the tables are presented.
2. The literature section could be more concise and a bit shorter (as it currently covers too much of the topic), however, I am ok if it remains as is.

Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you for the positive comments related to our work. We have further revised to address the remaining issues. Tables have been re-drawn, and some figures/images moved, re-drawn and enlarged. The literature sections have been condensed and merged to aid repeatability. Thank you for the suggestions.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thanks for update. It looks well