AUTHOR REVISION REPORT
Note: For comments/questions/Answer/Revisions, use the language according to the language used in the manuscript (English or Bahasa Indonesi.
Manuscript Identity Title Manuscript number Article Type First Submission date Recommendation on First Submission Manuscript Revision Submission Date 4G Network Optimization Based on Hybrid Clustering.
Physical Tuning, and Genetic Algorithm Research article / Review Article 2025-03-13 Reviewer 1 (RV.
: Minor Revision Reviewer 2 (RV.
: Minor Revision 2025-06-11 II.
ReviewerAos Comments General Impression General comprehension of the manuscript Language/style/ Grammar in general Structure Level of enthusiasm Reviewers (R1 & R.
Comments/Questions [R1.
In general, this manuscript has the potential to be published, there are some notes as revisions that need to be considered [R2.
The discussion in this paper does not yet address what new contributions this research offers compared to previous research.
[R1.
It's good [R2.
slightly improved [R1.
needs improvement [R2.
Author have revised the manuscript to more explicitly highlight the novel contributions of this research compared to prior [R1.
No any major/minor changes [R2.
sufficient [R1.
usual [R2.
Author have made minor revision in [R1.
[R2.
above average [R2.
[R1.
Explicitly state the novelty of the proposed research method.
[R2.
show the main objective of this Introduction [R1.
Author has made changes in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations.
[R2.
No any major changes [R1.
Author have made minor changes in structure according to reviewer Revision on Major Comments Reviewers (R1 & R.
Major Comments Abstract Authors Comments/Answers/Revisions in the Manuscript Authors Answers/Revisions in the Manuscript [R1.
Revision: Author has made changes by explicitly stating the novelty of the proposed method.
[R2.
Revision: Author have made explicity the main objective of this research [R2.
Add discussion What clustering method [R2.
Revision: Author have made was used in this study? Why was that method improvement to adding discussion according chosen? Methodology [R1.
The explanation of the method is quite complete, but the genetic algorithm (GA) part needs to be explained in more depth, such as the crossover and mutation schemes and the fitness function used.
[R1.
What is the basis for selecting the azimuth and tilt change limit parameters (A30A for azimuth and 0-6A for til.
based on previous studies, hardware limits, or experimental results? Results and Discussions [R1.
Answer: Limitations on changes are based on ISP regulations, as well as hardware limitations to maintain the coverage area of each sectoral antenna.
[R2.
How does ACP (Automatic Cell Plannin.
perform compared to the genetic algorithm (GA) method? [R2.
Answer: We have conducted a comparison between the Automatic Cell Planning (ACP) method and the proposed Genetic Algorithm (GA)-based optimization.
The results show that both methods successfully improve RSRP levels, with GA slightly outperforming ACP.
However, the GA-based approach demonstrated a more significant improvement in SINR, indicating better interference management.
These findings have now been included in the revised manuscript in the Results and Discussion section.
[R1.
Use the term AuFigure XAy [R1.
Answer: The author has changed the use of the term AuFigureAy [R1.
In the narrative, cite figures according to their labels [R1.
Answer: Yes, there is inconsistency between the image and the description.
It has been changed to maintain consistency.
[R1.
ambiguous phrasing in AuFrom the figure above there are 2 locations that have poor signal coverage based onSINR metricsAy, not mentioning which image is [R2.
What parameters, to be displayed, were used in evaluating network performance before and after optimization? Conclusions reviewer suggestion on last sentences of second paragraph.
[R1.
Revision: The author has added more detailed explanations about the genetic algorithm used, how to obtain individuals, populations, calculate performance from the fitness function, perform crossover and [R1.
The conclusion summarizes the main results concisely and clearly, but does not include suggestions or recommendations for further development.
[R2.
The success of the optimization carried out meets the KPI targets of the ISP set, and the benefits that can be used by [R1.
Revision: Author has explicitly stated the purpose of each explanation in the figures and tables.
[R2.
Answer: In our manuscript, we used RSRP and SINR as the main parameters for evaluating signal quality and coverage before and after optimization.
These parameters are clearly discussed in Sections .
sub-section [A], with supporting results shown in Tables .
and result on section .
sub-section [D] with ACP method and sub-section [E] using GA.
[R1.
Answer: Author has added recommendations for further reading.
[R2.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion.
We have added a clarification in the discussion section regarding how the optimization outcomes fulfill key performance indicators (KPI.
typically targeted by ISPs, such as improved RSRP and SINR levels.
Furthermore, we elaborated on how these improvements contribute to better user experiences, particularly in high-demand or previously low-signal areas.
Revision on Minor Comments Reviewers (R1 & R.
Minor Comments/Questions Style/Grammar Authors Comments/Answers/Revisions in the Manuscript Consistency/Terminology [R1.
No numbering of mathematical equations.
[R1.
The term AuPhysical TunningAy should be AuPhysical TuningAy.
[R1.
Answer: Author has added numbering on each equations.
[R1.
Answer: Author has changed term
of AuPhysical TuningAy References