======= Review 1 ======= *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of = the paper In this paper, the authors propose a new MAC protocol with which multiple = nodes can transmit simultaneously. The proposed MAC protocol can improve = the channel efficiency. Simulation results are given to evaluate the = performance of the proposed protocol. *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the = paper? The reviewer believes that it is highly possible that the authors conduct an = experimental study which should be more interesting. It is highly = recommended that the authors extend this idea with experimental results in = the future. *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes = that should be made to the paper if accepted. It would be great if the authors can provide experimental study. *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the = topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Acceptable (3) *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of = the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the = models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Solid work of notable importance. (4) *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas = or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of = text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Excellent. (5) ======= Review 2 ======= *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of = the paper This paper proposes a new protocol, Concurrent-MAC, to increase the = throughput of WLAN within a single contention domain, where concurrent = transmissions are permitted by passing a token from the winning transmitter = to a non-conflicting transmitter. The authors showed that their protocol = improves the throughput of the system comparing to the tradition IEEE = 802.11 protocol. *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the = paper? 1. The improvement seems limited. It might be interesting to see the = privilege be given to multiple non-conflicting transmitters instead of only = one transmitter. 2. The simulation setup seems not convincing. It is not stated how the = concurrent neighbor is selected and the selection algorithm may also have a = big impact on the performance. Also, in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, it is = claimed that five topologies are applied. It is not explained what is the = impact of this randomness in topologies that results in the throughput = improvement. I suggest a more detailed explanation. 3. Some of the simulation results lack explanation. E.g., why the throughput = improved in Fig.3 (a) is much better than that of Fig. 3(c)? 4. Several grammar mistakes and typos. E.g., no index for the last = reference. *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes = that should be made to the paper if accepted. Please refer to the weak aspects. *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the = topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (4) *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of = the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the = models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Valid work but limited contribution. (3) *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas = or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of = text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Well written. (4) ======= Review 3 ======= *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of = the paper This paper proposes a novel MAC protocol for dense wireless LANs. With the = proposed protocol, the concurrent transmissions can be performed to improve = the throughput of the network, the simulation results are provided to verify = the analysis. *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the = paper? The proposed protocol in the paper includes two components, but the probe = phase is described not so clearly. For instance, the method used to decide = how to find out the concurrent transmitters should be described in more = detail and the period duration for updating the concurrent lists should be = given. *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes = that should be made to the paper if accepted. Please refer the weak aspects. *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the = topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (4) *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of = the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the = models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Solid work of notable importance. (4) *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas = or results presented in the paper. Significant original work and novel results. (4) *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of = text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Well written. (4)