Proof and Print Reviewer Comments http://ees.elsevier.com/dcan/reviewer_recommend_draft_review.asp?doc...

Reviewer Recommendation and Comments for Manuscript Number DCAN-D-16-00074

Bilayer Expurgated LDPC Codes with Uncoded Relaying

Original Submission
MD Nashid Anjum (Reviewer 2)

Back Edit Review Print Submit Review To Journal Office

Recommendation: Minor Revision Overall Manuscript Rating (1-100):

Reviewer Blind Comments to Author:

Basically, this paper intends to improve the performance of LDPC codes by proposing an un-coded relaying scheme
where the relay generates some extra parity bits based on decoded source bits and forwards those bits to the receiver.
The paper is well written and the work is found valid.
There are following minor issues with this paper that should be addressed properly -
1. In abstract and conclusion, the paper claims that the proposed scheme improves performance - but it doesn't
specify in what perspective. Though from numerical results it can be understandable.
2. In numerical results, the term "bit erasure rate (BER)" needs an explanation. Apparently, it is supposed to be
replaced by "bit error rate" as it's mentioned in the reference [6] of this paper.
3. It is claimed that proposed scheme results in lower complexity at the relay. An elaborated explanation can be
provided to backup this claim. It would be preferable to provide some comparisons.
4. In section 2.1, the variable "z" is not introduced properly.
5. On page#2, footnote#5, the capacity of the channel is denoted by Ci. But, same notation has been used to
denote the code too. It might be better to choose a different symbol to denote the channel capacity.
6. It's preferable to mention which simulator has been used to conduct simulation.
7. Few typos/mistakes should be fixed. For example -
i. It's not preferable to use acronyms or references in abstract.
ii. In abstract, "..proposed by , these parity.". Something is missing in this sentence.
iii. Section-2, 2nd paragraph and section-3, 1st paragraph - "denote" should be replaced by "denotes".
iv. Page#2, footnote#4, full-stop (.) should be added at the end of the sentence.

Except those minor changes this paper is acceptable.

Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor:

For each question, please use the following scale to answer (place an x in the space provided):

"To what extent does the article meet this criterion?" 3

0 Fails by a large amount

1 Fails by a small amount
2 Succeeds by a small amount
3 Succeeds by a large amount
4 Not applicable

The subject addressed in this article is worthy of investigation. 3

0 __1 __2 __3 __4

The information presented was new. 3

0 __1 __2 __3 __4

The conclusions were supported by the data. 3

0 __1 __2 __3 __4

Is there a financial or other conflict of interest between your work and that of the authors? No

YES __ NO __

1 of 1 9/29/2016 8:16 PM