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.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The revised version can be accepted.
Please address the point raised by reviewer # 1
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors failed to respond to one of reviewer's comments. Inadequacies of the proposed methods are still not mentioned and possible solutions should be given as well.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Thank you for addressing all the suggested comments, I am happy with the revision.
The write-up and organisation of the paper need significant improvements. The abstract should be clear and concise and should mention the background, contributions, and findings.
[# 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/ #]
The research status in introduction and related works sections is insufficient. I suggest that more references should be supplemented and author should classify and summarize these works systematically.
no comment
no comment
This paper study the resource allocation problem in OFDM uplink communication. Comments as follows:
1. The reason why the proposed methods outperform other algorithms should be analyzed in the paper.
2. Inadequacies of the proposed methods should be described as well.
3. More suggestions and details should be added in future work.
See the comments to the authors.
See the comments to the authors.
See the comments to the authors.
The paper proposed a delay minimisation resource allocation method for D2D and CUE users in 5G based network uplink by considering delay bound value. The topic of this paper is interesting, however, the paper requires some revision in term of organisation and presentation. Please see my comments given below:
1. Authors should rewrite the abstract by highlighting the background, research problem, methodology and important outcome of the proposed work. Many statements in the are unclear, I think proofread the manuscript from a professional proofreader will be helpful. For example " …….. it is proposed an approach considering multifractal traffic envelope …….".
2. In abstract authors mentioned that they considered multifractal traffic
envelope process and service curve, but I couldn't find much explanation about these two terms. If you are introducing some jargon, you need to explain them properly beforehand.
3. The citation style looks inappropriate, for example, "Mishra et al. (2016)" should be "(Mishra et al., 2016)". Please check the correctness and revise accordingly.
4. The paper requires a separate section for related works. The related work didn't cover the literature and state-of-the-art of the presented work appropriately. You need to add more very relevant and recent work.
5. I suggest to add a notation table for the symbols used in the paper.
6. Some text in Figure 2 is unclear, please revise. Adapted figures from some other paper might raise copyright issue, I hope you have already asked for permission from the respective bodies to reuse the materials.
7. Why you have chosen MATLAB for conducting the simulation, justification is required.
8. Figures are taking too much space, you can try to reorganise the figures so that you can use space efficiently.
9. In the results and discussion section, you need to justify why the proposed method is performing better compared to the existing methods.
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.