kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review Comment

NSL > Works@NSL> About Review> Review Comment
Trung-Thanh Ngo, and Dong-Seong Kim, "A Smart TLVC-based Traffic Light Scheduling for Preventing YLD-related Accidents in Smart City", 2018 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) September 4th-7th, 2018, Torino, Italy, (A).
By :
Date : 2018-07-09
Views : 39

Feedback from the Reviewers
C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [3 - I agree]
The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [3 - I agree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [3 - I agree]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [2 - I am neutral]

Comments:
The paper must make clearer which components are adopted
from previous research and which are proposed from this
work. Existing mathematical formulas should have a citation
attached.


C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [3 - I agree]
The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [3 - I agree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [3 - I agree]

Comments:
The paper addresses the problem of improving the
scheduling of traffic lights to reduce the yellow light
dilemma (stop or go).

The problem is not very well formulated. Would a normal
counter solve the same problem in a much more efficient
and simple way?

How the proposed algorithm works in general is not
discussed, and there is hint about possible other problems
generated by the some delays imposed.

Sentences like "light violation case caused by the YLD
problem is greatly reduced by approximately 63% to 84%"
are quite annoying in an abstract and in the conclusion:
either you specify better or put an average number and
that's it.

ALso, 25 references seem too much even for a normal
conference paper, even more true for a WiP.


C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [3 - I agree]
The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [4 - I strongly agree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [3 - I agree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [3 - I agree]

Comments:
The paper is well organized and defined.


Accepted or Rejected?
The manuscript is on the list of accepted manuscripts.
The manuscript is not on the list of rejected manuscripts.
The manuscript is not on the list of withdrawn manuscripts.
The manuscript is not on the list of registered manuscripts.