Associate Editor Comments, if any, are listed below: Associate Editor: Special Issue, IoNT Comments to Author: Based on the comments by the reviewers, I will need to recommend this paper for REVISE AND RESUBMIT. In particular the reviewers have questioned the importance of only focusing on the PSNR and not on the impact of BER or PER. Other serious concerns are also raised about the reviews of a number of coding schemes where only a subset was considered and also missing other important proposed coding approaches that have been proposed for nanoscale wireless communication. These issues as well as other concerns raised by the reviewers will need to be addressed well before this paper can be considered for this special issue. We would kindly ask the authors to complete the reviews and submitted by May 15th. Reviewer Comments, if any, are listed below: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Overall, this paper appears to me to be very superficial with little information regarding the specifics of the nano channel. The authors have taken many top level equations and simply compared them against each other. Critically though, I cannot see an uncoded channel or link though so could not say if coding is a benefit or not in the first place. For example, energy efficiency, whilst important is not the same as absolute energy, so an efficient scheme which needs lots of energy still needs lots of energy which may not be available at the nano. Essentially, this is an unfocused overview at a high level. Many of the ideas presented are not well conceived. It is an internet of nano things so it is an collection of ultra ultra low power simple devices, not sending images between them but bits or tens or bits. Images being sent are more like a conventional internet of things issue. I also don’t know why this discussion of MATLAB exists as MATLAB is not going to be running on a nano-machine either. It would have been better to focus on fewer codes and explain how or if they can be actually be implemented at the nano or in fact if the equations are correct at the nano. You have for example managed to take the work of work Jonet in [14] and shortened it to 15 lines and then followed it with 5 lines about Huffman with no information on how to implement it (if it can be). This paper either needs to be a review paper with full sources, or a technical paper with more information, but it cannot be both. Also: 1. All the full names of the abbreviations should be given on first occurrence. 2. Equation (1) gives three conditions for different i, but two of them seems overlap with each other, the author should be justified how to use them or it doesn’t matter. 3. Reference [15] appears early than reference [14]. 4. The parameter ‘a’ appeared many times for different meanings. These should be revised. 5. Equation (24) and (25) should be explained future. The author denoted that Npulse is the number of transmitted pulse but I think it is more like the sum of all the pulses. 6. This paper consider about the nanocommunication based on an electromagnetic channel, I think there should include something about the electromagnetic channel, for me it looks like some comparisons between different codes, but no related with the electromagnetic channel, like how special between this channel with other traditional communication channels. 7. The author should give the method about how to calculate the computational complexity to give the Fig 8. What kind of encoding and decoding methods is better for the system you proposed. In my opinion, section E in page 7 should be improved by giving more details. 8. It is better if the authors can give the PSNR formula directly rather than give a reference [18] without the specific page. And the author gave numerical results for ‘robustness against transmission errors’, is it possible to give theoretical results? If not, why Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author In this paper, the authors compare different low-weight coding strategies for electromagnetic nanonetworks. More specifically, first, the authors introduce 7 existing source coding techniques and propose a new technique, which is a straightforward variation of one of the techniques. Then, they compare these techniques using different metrics, including energy efficiency, bandwidth expansion, impact on multi-user interference, robustness against transmission errors and computational complexity. The analysis is first done theoretically and, then, the performance of the different coding strategies is analyzed for the transmission of an image of a single cancer cell. This makes the results very relevant. The topic is timely and very well aligned with this special issue. Data transmission in wireless nanosensor networks is still at its infancy, but studies like this can help the development of the field. In terms of quality of presentation, the paper is overall acceptable, but needs some improvements in terms of writing. Please see me detailed comments below: However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before I can recommend this paper for publication. Without following any particular order: 1) For completeness, the authors need to incorporate the minimum weight codes described in: M. Kocaoglu and O. B. Akan, “Minimum energy channel codes for nanoscale wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1492–1500, 2013. Such codes exhibit the minimum weight possible, at the cost of very large bandwidth expansion. It would be beneficial to incorporate them in the comparison. 2) In Sec. III.F, the authors discuss the robustness against transmission errors offered by the different channel coding schemes, but they mainly focus on the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR). However, it would be more relevant to talk about Bit Error Rate (BER), Block Error Rate (BLER) or perhaps Packet Error Rate (PER) even. The main justification for such study is that, while indeed, different coding strategies might result in lower PSNR and, thus, lower BERs, the transmission of longer codewords can result into equal or even higher BLER and PER. In other words, what is the point in reducing the BER if then there are more bits transmitted and the final BLER is the same. Such discussion and evaluation is missing in the paper. 3) Sec. II.F, P(1) should be defined as w/m, not over n. I hope this was just a typo, otherwise all the results need to be revised. 4) What is the binary stream used in Sec. IV? More details on the type of data that is transmitted in that case is needed. 5) In terms of structure, I suggest the following changes: - The introduction needs to have a clear description of the contributions of the paper. It also should give more emphasis to the fact that part of the results are obtained when transmitting a cancer cell image. - The first paragraph in Section II can be removed, as it is practically the same as in the Introduction. - I perhaps would suggest merging section III and section IV into a single section. As it is now, it seems very repetitive and confusing to some extent. For example, there are some results for the energy efficiency given in Sec. III.A, and some others given in Sec. IV. A. What is the difference? That is not clear to me. 6) Regarding quality of presentation, there are several typos/grammatical errors that need to be fixed, for example, - In the abstract: — “Time Spread-On Off Keying” -> “Time-spread On-Off Keying” — “performs quite well” -> Too informal, inaccurate. The authors need to provide a more accurate statement about the performance of their proposed coding scheme. - In the introduction: — “total dimension between” -> “total dimensions between” -> In fact, nanosensors have dimensions of cubic nanometers or micrometers. — Throughout the paper, whenever “i.e.” or “e.g.” are used, these need to be preceded and followed by comma. — “a pulse spread in time” -> It seems to me that the pulses are not spread in time, but their transmissions are. — Throughout the paper, make sure that all the abbreviations and acronyms are defined the first time (only) and then used consistently. For example, right now, ME, NME, PG, etc., are all used in the introduction, but not defined till Section II. Please fix this. I would suggest the authors to carefully proof-read the entire manuscript before resubmitting it. - Regarding the references, [9] seems to be redundant.