Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is proposed investigation of the impact of non-ideal environmental factors, including hardware impairments, random user distributions, and imperfect channel conditions, on the performance of distributed Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS)-assisted air-ground fusion networks. Monte Carlo simulations are employed to validate theoretical analyses, demonstrating that in non-ideal environmental conditions, distributed RIS-assisted air-ground fusion networks outperform benchmark scenarios.

Some considerations regarding the content of the paper:

- The title of the article should be on the first page instead of the word «Title».

- The review in State of the Art of current research on this topic in Introduction is good. It is very good that there are references to 2024 publications that reflect the state of research in this area.

- At the end of Introduction should be given information about the content of another sections of paper.

- For the title of section 2, it is better not to use all capital letters and to write which system model is offered.

- It would be good to describe whether the type of UAV affects the proposed approach.

- What does it mean the UAV-USER (direct link) in describe of formula 2?

- It is necessary to carefully check whether all variables are explained after the formulas.

- How were the main simulation parameters chosen in Table 1?

- The references to Figures 2-6 are given after figures in the text of paper.

- In Conclusions is not given information about the future work and it will be also good to give some analysis of obtained results in MatLab.

- The text of paper should be carefully read and corrected errors in text formatting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should carefully examine and correct syntactic errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

In response to your suggestions, we have made revisions to our manuscript. The document now includes responses to your comments and the updated version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback.

 

Best Regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Yuanyuan Yao, Qi Liu, Sai Huang, Kan Yu, and Xinwei Yue

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer gets the following concerns.

1) The last sentence in the Abstract is incomplete or contains a typo, thus the authors are advised to rephrase this sentence. Meanwhile, the authors are advised to check the entire manuscript to enhance the English writing.

2) A Table of abbreviations would be beneficial for ease of following.

3) The large-scale channel model component adopted for the UAV-related links is advised to be further justified because the authors seem to invoke the free-space pathloss model that is rather general, instead of UAV-specific.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine, but can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

In response to your suggestions, we have made revisions to our manuscript. The document now includes responses to your comments and the updated version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback.

 

Best Regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Yuanyuan Yao, Qi Liu, Sai Huang, Kan Yu, and Xinwei Yue

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented work analyzes an impact of non-ideal environmental factors on the performance of distributed Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface -assisted air ground fusion networks.

The proposed distributed Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-assisted network may solve potential challenges in future wireless communication networks and provides a valuable reference for the practical application of future air-ground fusion networks.

 

There are several notes to the proposed work:

1. I would recommend expanding the description of the mathematical formulas and parameters used in each formula.

2.Also, the captions of the figures should be expanded, since they are currently insufficiently informative.

3. Also, I would not use in conclusion term "paper comprehensively investigates" because many other methods may be added to investigate the proposed solution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

In response to your suggestions, we have made revisions to our manuscript. The document now includes responses to your comments and the updated version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback.

 

Best Regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Yuanyuan Yao, Qi Liu, Sai Huang, Kan Yu, and Xinwei Yue

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf