International Journal of Ad Hoc & Sensor Wireless Networks
        ==========================================================

                       Special Issue for MSN05

	
                          PAPER REVIEW FORM
                          -----------------

Title: Approximate Optimal Power Allocation Scheme for Wireless Ad Hoc 
       Networks in Rayleigh Fading Channels

Author(s):   Dan Xu, Zhisheng Niu, Fangyu Hu

Reviewer:    Xiuzhen Cheng
         
Date To Be Returned:  10 Jan 06

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I. NUMERICAL RATING OF THE PAPER:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rating Category    Your Rating       Scale Definition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Level of                        5=Excellent
 Reader Interest      |-----|    4=Very good
                      |  3  |    3=Good
                      |-----|    2=Fair
                                 1=Poor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Evaluation of Work              5=Excellent work and a major contribution
 and Contribution     |-----|    4=Good solid work of some importance
                      |  4  |    3=Solid work but marginal contribution
                      |-----|    2=Marginal work and very minor contribution
                                 1=Very questionable work and contribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Originality                     5=Highly original work
 Novelty              |-----|    4=Contains an original contribution
                      |  4  |    3=Somewhat original
                      |-----|    2=Variation of a known concept
                                 1=Complete lack of original ideas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Practical Utility               5=Excellent
                      |-----|    4=Very good
                      |  3  |    3=Good
                      |-----|    2=Fair
                                 1=Poor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Quality of                      5=Very good
 Presentation         |-----|    4=Basically well written
                      |  2  |    3=Readable
                      |-----|    2=Needs considerable work
                                 1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Technical                       5=Very good
 Correctness          |-----|    4=Good
                      |  4  |    3=Flaws but easy to correct
                      |-----|    2=Some flaws
                                 1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Overall Rating                  5=Strong accept (very good quality)
 (could be .5)        |-----|    4=Accept (good quality)
                      | 3.5 |    3=Accept if room (marginal quality)
 	              |-----|    2=Likely reject (low quality)
                                 1=Definitely reject (has no merit)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS (to be made available to the author(s)):
------------------------------------

Thechnically speaking this paper is strong. However, the language of this paper 
is very bad. The first page is OK. Authors need to make 
significant improvement in their presentation for other pages in order for this paepr to 
be accepted. Otherwise the paper should be rejected. Some examples typos/errors for page two
are listed below:

1. it counterpart OPSSC ==> its counterpart OPSSC

2. Suppose the ith link in a scenario, the transmit power of the ith link is Pti, the ...This 
sentence should be rewritten 

3. Let $\gamma_i$ is ==> let $\gamma_i$ be

4. Since $P_{ri}$ and ... ==> since $P_{ri}$ and ... This is not a sentence.

5. The first sentence of section A needs to be rewritten. There are two predicates.

6. the other factor of system capacity ==> another factor of system capacity

7. no any power ==> no power

8. one type traffic ==> one type of traffic

9. The first sentence of Section III should be rewritten. There are two predicates.


In performance evaluation, more explanation should be provided. For example in Fig 4, the authors
only identify that OPSSC method fails at some power allocation cycles but there is
no explanation on this failure.


The improvement in power conservation is a very interesting metric. How the proposed scheme
can conserve power compared to OPSSC under different scenarios should be studied. Fig 5 
provides some basic information but not in detail.









III. CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS (IF ANY) to be withheld from the author(s):
------------------------------------

Comments given under THIS item are for the EDITORS ONLY (to be withheld 
from the authors). 

This paper is recommended for an acceptance if language is satisefiable after
a major improvement; Otherwise, it should be rejected. Many sentences are unreadable.