Can the WiMAX IEEE 802.16 Standard Be Used to Resolve Last-Mile Connectivity Issues in Botswana?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a network-level analysis carried out using OPNET to investigate whether Botswana’s national broadband project could adopt WiMAX IEEE 802.16e as an access technology. Although the objective of the paper is interesting and, doubtlessly, has a relevant social impact, the manuscript has too many major issues to be published in the MDPI Telecom journal.

First, and the most relevant argument is that the paper has an important lack of novelty. The authors have not presented any novel methodology, simulation tool, or even results. In general, I can hardly see it as a journal paper. In my opinion, it would rather fit as a conference publication since the paper's contribution is very limited.

Then, especially at the beginning of the manuscript (Sections 1, 2, and 3), the paper looks more focused on politics than on a technical analysis of the WiMAX IEEE 802.16e technology. Indeed, I honestly think that the authors should have to change the writing style over the whole paper.

Afterwards, the literature review section has to be completely modified. In fact, as it is presented in the current manuscript, it is not a literature review. It is an overview of the status of WiMAX IEEE 802.16e technology. If the authors want to provide a real literature review, they should gather the most representative and current technical work published up to now concerning the WiMAX IEEE 802.16e technology. Then, they should analyze the strengths and weaknesses of those papers and specify how their paper fits in current literature.

Finally, I have several issues regarding the simulation model implemented. On the one hand, the authors underline that they are simulating three different scenarios. However, the only difference among them is the distance (i.e., 10, 20, and 30 km). Therefore, those are not three scenarios; it is a single scenario with a distance variation for the analysis. That is why these simulations are not representative of a whole country. In fact, they would not be representative of a city. The authors should vary different network configuration parameters to analyze the performance of the access technology under different conditions. Moreover, the results are not analyzed. In fact, the authors just present the graphics with the results, but without any explanation. There is no result discussion. Finally, Section 5.1 should be eliminated from the manuscript since it looks like an OPNET tutorial section. The authors should underline which are the novelties that they have incorporated into the simulator.

Author Response

Good Day

Thank your input, it has improved my professional and academic way of looking at challenges.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents Can WiMAX IEEE802 be used to resolve last-mile connectivity issues in Botswana? My comments on this work are as follows:

Figure 2-4 the fonts are not visible. Please enhance it properly.

Instead of taking snapshots from the simulator, Please plot the figures in professional software.

figure 11 is not even visible.

The writing style of the paper is very poor and it is not focused on technical stuffs.

They have simulated three different distances which are not actually scenarios and there is no scientific information in it.

Graphics of the paper is unacceptable at all.

References taken from literature need to be referenced properly.

After improving the quality the paper needs to be resubmitted. In current form it is not applicable to be published.

Author Response

Good Day

Thank your input, it has improved my professional and academic way of looking at challenges.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

>The final part of the introduction should highlight the novelty of the work.

>The comparison shown in the table 1 is interesting. I suggest presenting information about hardware requirements and specific features of the tools.

>There are some (e.g. at-tributes, re-port, mo-bile, ad-dress) text-editing issues (page 4, section 3).

>The introduction should contain additional information about WiMAX issues.

>The quality of the screenshots should be improved.

>The symbols used in formulas should be carefully described (section 4.2).

>I have found the results interesting and clearly presented. However, I think it needs extended description in the  context of the title-question.

Author Response

Good Day

Thank your input, it has improved my professional and academic way of looking at challenges.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the paper have answered all my comments. Although the paper's novelty is quite limited, I think I could be interesting for other researchers and readers. 

Author Response

Good Day

Thank you once again for the opportunity to look at my work, I have highlighted the changes regarding the method.

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

thanks for the revisions.

Author Response

Good Day

Thank you once again for the opportunity to look at my work.

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

>Please improve the captions of the figures.

Author Response

Good Day

Thank you once again for the opportunity to look at my work; I have highlighted the changes regarding the caption. I followed the telecom template for the table/figure caption. 

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf