Next Article in Journal
Assistive Robots for Healthcare and Human–Robot Interaction
Previous Article in Journal
Generalized Design, Modeling and Control Methodology for a Snake-like Aerial Robot
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Physical-Layer Security with Irregular Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for 6G Networks†

Sensors 2023, 23(4), 1881; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041881
by Emmanuel Obeng Frimpong 1,‡, Bong-Hwan Oh 2, Taehoon Kim 3,* and Inkyu Bang 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2023, 23(4), 1881; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041881
Submission received: 7 January 2023 / Revised: 2 February 2023 / Accepted: 3 February 2023 / Published: 7 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Next Generation Intelligent Communications and Networks)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

We genuinely appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer and editor. We have done our best to reflect all the concerns addressed in the review. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved. In addition, the concerns mentioned by the reviewer have been addressed in our revised manuscript (the revised parts are highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript) and answered in this letter. Please refer to the revised manuscript and this reply letter.

Please note that we have separately made a reply letter for each reviewer since the submission system requires uploading individual responses to each reviewer.

**Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper needs a major revision,

- Please indicate the insights obtained by your work

- Please simulate with large M, e.g., 32,64

- Please survey more papers on physical layer security of RIS. The following paper should by cited: Artificial Noise Aided Secure NOMA Communications in STAR-RIS Networks

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

We genuinely appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer and editor. We have done our best to reflect all the concerns addressed in the review. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved. In addition, the concerns mentioned by the reviewer have been addressed in our revised manuscript (the revised parts are highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript) and answered in this letter. Please refer to the revised manuscript and this reply letter.

Please note that we have separately made a reply letter for each reviewer since the submission system requires uploading individual responses to each reviewer.

**Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First, in terms of content, it is estimated at the level of a conference paper, and both in terms of the number of references and attention to other layers - beyond just the physical layer - the text should be strengthened. Secondly, a similar article by the first three of the four present authors can be seen at the following address:

https://journal-home.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/site/2022s/abs/0750.pdf

So it is necessary for the authors to explain that the current work is really so different from this article that they considered it suitable for submission in the journal?!

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

We genuinely appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer and editor. We have done our best to reflect all the concerns addressed in the review. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved. In addition, the concerns mentioned by the reviewer have been addressed in our revised manuscript (the revised parts are highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript) and answered in this letter. Please refer to the revised manuscript and this reply letter.

Please note that we have separately made a reply letter for each reviewer since the submission system requires uploading individual responses to each reviewer.

**Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns, no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

thank you for your revision

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

In part 2, which you mentioned about learning algorithms, the following paper should be cited:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41371-018-0052-3

Author Response

We have tried to understand Reviewer 3's comment but we think the suggested link by Reviewer 3 is incorrect.  The research area of the suggested paper is quite different from ours.

Title of the suggested paper: "Less primary fistula failure in hypertensive patients"
Research Area: Journal of Human Hypertension

Title of our paper: "Physical-Layer Security with Irregular Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for 6G Networks"
Research Area: Wireless Communication
Back to TopTop