======= Review 1 =======

> *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate).

In this paper, the authors assess the impact og a number of system parameters (number of preambles, number of access opportunities per period, maximum number of allowed retransmissions, etc) on the performance of the LTE-A random access scheme. This is accomplished by means of computer simulations. This is the type of work one could expect to see in a standards development organization at the time of developing a new protocol. Reults are not novel but provide valuable insights on the behavious/limitations of current RA schemes in the presence of massive M2M traffic. As suggestions, please, 

1) Provide further details on the impact of the modelling based on the parameter set [p_d, p_r, p_c) on RACH capacity evaluations (i.e., discussion in the paragaph right after Table I). Specifically, WHAT type of assessment would not be reliable and, more importantly, WHY? Thanks.


2) Consider moving the 'related works' section to the intrduction (where it stands now, seems to be a bit misplaced).

> *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper.
Working in this area of research (2)

> *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (2)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty.
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Well written. (2)

> *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected
Weak accept (2)

======= Review 2 =======

> *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate).

Thank you for clear paper on a relevant topic. Results are valuable. Please change "on" into "one" in the first sentence of the conclusions.

> *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper.
Very limited expertise (4)

> *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (2)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty.
Solid work of notable importance. (2)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected
Weak accept (2)

======= Review 3 =======

> *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate).

Novelty is very limited. Please highlight the actual contribution, i.e. the evaluation part.

> *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper.
Working in this area of research (2)

> *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (2)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty.
Marginal work and simple contribution. (4)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected
Weak reject (4)