All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewers still have some minor comments. Please update them accordingly. Please proofread this paper carefully.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The format of the paper should be improved.
The figures are not clear.
Introduction should be Section I?
In Simulation section, section 5, second paragraph, there is ''Figure. ??''
Simulation part could be improved. The figures are difficult to read.
In Simulation section, section 5, second paragraph, there is ''Figure. ??''
Please improve your simulation part. Some figures are not clear and it is difficult to read.
The paper should be future improved. For example, the figures are not clear. Introduction Section should be Section I? There are several typos in the paper.
My questions have been answered appropriately. The quality of the revised paper has been improved. However, the grammar and typos should be checked again through the whole article. For example, in the third sentence of the abstract, "....that may ultimately results in inappropriate...." should be "...that may ultimately result in inappropriate...".
no comment
no comment
The authors need to improve the writing of this paper. The literature review is not complete. Some notations are missing in this paper. The contributions of this paper should be clearly stated.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This paper has studied a game theoretic cost dominant approach for cognitive radio networks. In general, this paper is interesting and good but could be improved. Some typos should be corrected. For example, in line 218, there should be a space between 'benefit' and 'Wang. Line 266: 'Figure2'->'Figure 2'.The title and abstract may be rephrased. Related work section is very long and could be more concise.
Experimental design is OK but could be improved. Some figure could be made clearer, for example, Fig. 2, 5, 6 are difficult to read.
The power control in cognitive radio has been studied extensively in the past. The authors should state clear what the contribution their papers has brought compared to the existing state-of-the-art. The authors are also suggested to compare their findings with the existing solutions in the literature and show the improvement.
Also, it is better you can analyze more on the convergence and complexity theoretically of the algorithms.
It is better the authors can show how the proposed solution can be applied in the practical system. It seems just the theoretical analysis conducted in the current version.
English grammar and sentence structure need to be rechecked. There are many irregularities in writing, such as:
1) The first sentence in abstract, "In wireless networks, poor communication, and congestion results from an increase in
demand of already scares bandwidth resources."
2) The third sentence in abstract, "While the CR paradigm is an attractive choice, the CRs selfishly compete to
acquire and utilize available bandwidth that may ultimately results in power allocation,
causing degradation in Quality of Service of the network"
3) Page 5, line 34, "In cognitive radio networks the PU"---->“In cognitive radio networks, the PU”, line 41, what is "Law et al.."? The same problem appears on line 46.
4) Line 190, "In this paper we propose..."-->"In this paper, we propose..."
1) The reasearch question is defined. The numerical results and relevant code are provided. However, more clearly and prominently statements should be given on how reasearch is different from or outperforms the existing research works such as the papers "A. Al Talabani, A. Nallanathan and H. X. Nguyen, "A Novel Chaos Based Cost Function for Power Control of Cognitive Radio Networks," in IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 657-660, April 2015, doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2014.2385068", "Z. Xiao et al., "Spectrum Resource Sharing in Heterogeneous Vehicular Networks: A Noncooperative Game-Theoretic Approach With Correlated Equilibrium," in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 9449-9458, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2018.2855683."
2) New technolgy is developped recently, for example the Intelligent Reflecting Surface (IRS), the CR throughput can be further improved with assistance of IRS. The authors should mention relevant research work as the latest research background, such as the paper "Lei Zhang et al., Intelligent Reflecting Surface Aided MIMO Cognitive Radio Systems, in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 11445-11457, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2020.3011308".
no comment
A congestion game model is proposed in this paper to mitigate interference and congestion in CR network. However, some places that may confuse the reader require careful explanation by the author.
1) The result of the game is equivalent to minimize the inverse SIR, why not directly aim to maximize the SIR? It seems that they have a same Nash equilibrium.
2) In equations (6) and (7), the first terms after the equal signs, which is the benefit of minimum correlation with other players, should be positive (without "-") from the perspective of formula 3. Why do you add "-"?
3) Please explain the unstabel state when the number of iterations is 100 in Figure 2.
4) The first occurrence of mathematical symbols should be explained, such as "B_i()" and "C_i()" in equation (2).
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.