kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review Comment

NSL > Works@NSL> About Review> Review Comment
Muhammad Rusyadi Ramli, Dong-Seong Kim, "A Priority-based Medium Access Protocol for UAV-WSN",(S), IEEE Sensors Journal (IF:2.617, ISSN: 1530-437X), 2018.
By :
Date : 2018-09-10
Views : 20

Dear Prof. Kim,

I am writing to you concerning the above referenced manuscript, which you submitted to the IEEE Sensors Journal.

Although it has merit, based on the enclosed set of reviews this manuscript has not been recommended for publication in the IEEE Sensors Journal.

We recommend that you consider the comments of the reviewers, located at the bottom of this letter, and revise the manuscript and submit it to another more suitable journal.

If you have any questions regarding the reviews or this decision, please contact me directly. Any other support inquiries should be directed to:

Lauren Young
l.young@ieee.org

Thank you for considering IEEE Sensors Journal for publication of your work.

Sincerely,

Prof. Chang-hee Won
cwon@temple.edu

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sensors

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Publish in Minor, Required Changes (as noted in the Comments section. This rating may not be assigned for Sensors Letters.)

Comments:
I have only three main comments to improve the presented work:
1- Authors should discuss the energy consumption of the nodes based on the proposed protocol, and they should also present some related results. Also, they may choose the "energy efficiency" as a comprehensive metric to relate the achievable throughput to the energy consumed.

2- Authors should discuss more related works such as the following:
- UAV-assisted data gathering in wireless sensor networks
- Priority-based data gathering framework in UAV-assisted wireless sensor networks
- Effective data gathering and energy efficient communication protocol in wireless sensor networks employing UAV

3- Finally, I encourgae the authors to discuss the proposed protocol on the novel data gathering scheme that has been recently resented "Index Modulation for Cluster-based Wireless Sensor Networks".

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: Yes

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Yes

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Suitable

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Could be improved

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

title and abstract explanation:

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended, including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes

length of the paper recommendation:

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Yes

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Satisfactory

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Unsatisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: good

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: sufficiently novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: mostly accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No


Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (Paper is not acceptable for the Sensors Journal. Author should be encouraged to submit to another journal.)

Comments:
This paper proposes a new MAC protocol for data collection using a UAV in wireless sensor networks. The key idea is to give a higher priority to nodes that are farther away from the center of the UAV communication range such that an improved fairness can be achieved. Simulations based on NS3 are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed MAC protocol.

The scenario of UAV-assisted data collection considered in this paper is interesting. However, the reviewer has several major concerns.

1. This paper considers a simple scenario and makes several important assumptions that seem to be unrealistic. For example, this paper assumes that the sensor nodes are equipped with GPS such that they can track and information their network locations. However, in many cases sensor nodes may not have GPS, and thus, the proposed protocol simply does not work. The accuracy of the GPS will have a big impact on the performance of the proposed protocol, which, however, is not discussed. Also, this paper assumes that UAV and sensors always have enough energy to perform the data collection task. This assumption is unrealistic too as sensor nodes typically are energy-constrained. Energy efficiency should be a key design concern for the MAC protocol.

2. The key of this paper is to give a higher priority to nodes that are farther away from the center of the UAV communication range. This design seems to introduce a tradeoff between fairness and network throughput, which is not addressed in the paper. In contrast, this paper claims that both throughput and fairness can be improved. This is counter-intuitive and needs to be better explained.

3. This paper lacks technical depth. The proposed solution is a heuristic only and is evaluated using simulations based on NS3. No theoretical analysis is provided in the paper. The evaluations only compare the proposed protocol with IEEE 802.111 CSMA/CA.

4. The presentation of this paper needs to be substantially improved. There are a lot of editorial issues (typos, grammatical mistakes, etc.).

5. Several important issues are not considered in the paper, such as interference in the multi-UAV scenario and optimal UAV flight path design.

6. Algorithm 1 is confusing. When is "Registeredsensor" increased by one?

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?: No (explain)

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Important information is missing or superficially treated.

3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?: Superficial

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Not novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Could be improved

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

title and abstract explanation:

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended, including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes

length of the paper recommendation:

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Not always

5. How do you rate the English usage?: Needs improvement

6. Rate the Bibliography?: Satisfactory

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: poor

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: not novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: mostly accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: poor match

Would you recommend this paper for a Best Paper Award?: No