======= 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). The authors discuss the user association, especially using a self-deployable network, in the context of disaster management. The authors show that the user-association used in 4G networks has severe drawbacks, mainly because the system information broadcasted by the BSs does not announce information about the network capacity or any QoS suppor *** 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. Well written. (2) *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Accept (1) ======= 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). It seems that this paper theoretically discussed deployment problems of LTE and wireless communication protocols and network infrastructures applying for disaster managements. These components such as the wireless communications are unlikely to be dependent for the disaster, but in the future, I guessed that 5G based faster wireless intercommunication infrastructure for smart-grid, smart-home, and smart-city will be pervading into our daily life as well as the emergency situations. But there are some considerable points at emergency situations. Especially, Estimation of population in arbitrary area (e.g. indoor) is quite needed for rescue. It is still harder to be grasped accurately and monitored by measurable ways. If big-data such as energy supply variations in each home can be real-timely obtained, such estimations would be probably possible. I have heard Wifi-based population estimation by actual experiments indoor. *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Familiar with this area of research (3) *** 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. Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3) *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Borderline paper (3) ======= 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). The paper is well written and presented. Also, the LTE association issue in disaster management scenarios is properly documented. In Section I, the choice to present the LTE technology as "the perfect candidate for public safety and disaster management" could be better argued and motivated. Also, all the 3GPP technical specifications included within the References are mostly outdated. By referring to the presented issue, something also should be included about the 5G and latest 3GPP releases. One typo in Section II, as listed -> has listed. *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Familiar with this area of research (3) *** 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 Accept (1) ======= Review 4 ======= *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate). This reads like a very elementary level work. Incomplete and the main theme is simply about some idea without going into the technical details. It is hard to discern what has been contributed to the research arena. Such ideas already do exist about HAM radio, ad hoc networks, etc. or similar other settings. What LTE has to do here is not clear. In fact, when disaster strikes, when the infrastructure collapses, often the quickest solution would be the HAM radio or amateur radio communication that does not need fixed infrastructure. I see very little merit of the overall work. *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Truly expert in this area of research (1) *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Little (4) *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty. Questionable work with severe flaws. (5) *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Unacceptable. (5) *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Reject (5)