Optimal Power Allocation for Achieving Secure Green Cognitive Radio Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The methodology is not clearly explained. For example, you do not clearly explained the ED-link and its purposes, the notation in the equations (please describe exactly EACH symbol in each equation e.g C1-C4 in eq. 1, P1 in eq. 4a, f(n) in eq. 5 etc.

The paper has to have a section dealing exactly with the limitations of the method. For example no mobility, lack of selective fading etc.

The paper should have a section Discussion after the presentation of the results. Conclusions are very limited and present the limited importance of the paper. Please improve the section showing more importance (if it can be shown).

Author Response

We have addressed all the comments from the reviewer. Please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is focused on a well-known idea about cognitive radio. In this sense, the presented manuscript can be considered an improvement regarding an idea, therefore, the novelty of the manuscript is limited to the cognitive radio topic. Nevertheless, it is a wide topic and it contributes with some useful idea. However, the following issues should be solved: 

 

-       In the system model, there is not equations about the received signal and, even more important, about the power consumption. This is extremely important to assign a proper framework for the manuscript. 

-       What kind of channel is considered? If it is only Gaussian, other channel should be considered for improving the paper. For instance, Rayleigh channel in which it is possible to determine the probability of deep fading and, therefore, the probability of using cognitive radio. 

-       How fast is the CSI acquired at the transmitter side? This is one of the main problems to solve in cognitive radio. 

-       Simulations are correct. However, it would be useful to highlight the power efficiency improvement in comparison with other schemes. 

Author Response

We have addressed all the comments from the reviewer. Please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Editorials:

1. Lack of equation numbering (pages 7-8), renumbering needed.

2. In line 242 square symbol.

 

Author Response

We have addressed all the comments raised by this reviewer. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf