kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Sanjay Bhardwaj,Dong-Seong Kim,"Adaptive Interface Diversity Algorithm for URLLC in Industrial Wireless Network ", Journal of Selected Area of Communication (JSAC)
By :
Date : 2018-11-06
Views : 314

Dear Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj:

We regret to inform you that your paper #1570467469 ('Adaptive Interface Diversity Algorithm for URLLC in Industrial Wireless Network') cannot be accepted for publication in the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications Special Issue on Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications in Wireless Networks.
We would like to thank you for submitting your manuscript to this JSAC Special Issue. Each paper was carefully peer-reviewed by qualified reviewers and the Editorial Team. However, for various reasons ans due to the high number of submissions, many good papers could not be included in the IEEE JSAC URLLC issue.

Best regards,
The Guest Editorial Team

======= Meta review 1 =======

> *** Suitability: Is the paper suitable for the JSAC special issue on "URLLC in Wireless Networks"?
Somewhat suitable (2)

> *** Originality: How do you rate the novelty of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Technical content: How do you rate the technical level of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Presentation: How do you rate the clarity of the paper?
Somewhat suitable (2)

> *** Detailed comments and recommendation: Editorial review and recommendation

The authors consider the usage of interface diversity for URLLC applications. The paper lacks sufficient novelty and clarity. Therefore, I recommend to not accept it for the special issue.

======= JSAC URLLC review 2 =======

> *** Suitability: Is the paper suitable for the JSAC special issue on URLLC in Wireless Networks?
Not suitable (0)

> *** Originality: How do you rate the novelty of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Technical content: How do you rate the technical level of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Presentation: How do you rate the clarity of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity, impact, and technical depth of the paper.

The paper tries to investigate the issue of interface diversity for URLLC. The authors propose some algorithm and provide a little numerical analysis.

> *** Strengths: What are the major reasons for accepting the paper?

Neither does the paper provide a technical contribution, nor does it express ideas that are novel in some way.

> *** Weaknesses: What are the most important reasons for NOT accepting the paper?

- The paper does not have a research contribution.

> *** Detailed comments and recommendation: Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the Guest Editors for assessing the paper. Also, provide feedback to the authors.

I give here a few pointers for the authors to consider, in case that they think they want to rework the paper and submit at some other venue:
- The authors claim that interface diversity can contribute to URLLC. I highly doubt this, as inbterface diversity leads to difficult problems in terms of timing control and synchronization. Thus, a solid discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach is required.
- It appears that algorithm 1 is the main contribution of the authors. In this algorithm, however, it is unclear how the nodes obtain the required information, where the algorithm is executed, how often this needs to be rerun. I furthermore could not determine where the difference of algorithm 1 is in comparison to exhaustive search. I.e. the authors need to make their research contribution much stronger.
- The numerical evaluation is pointless, from my point of view. I would like to see how - for a practically relevant scenario - algorithm 1 improves the latency characteristic. In particular, I would like to see how this improvement compares to other schemes that are known today for URLLC? In other words, the numerical evaluation needs to demonstrate superiority of the proposed scheme at least in some situations. There is no evidence that points in that direction.
- A careful discussion of the contributions in comparison to state-of-the-art is missing.

======= JSAC URLLC review 3 =======

> *** Suitability: Is the paper suitable for the JSAC special issue on URLLC in Wireless Networks?
Marginal (1)

> *** Originality: How do you rate the novelty of the paper?
Marginal (1)

> *** Technical content: How do you rate the technical level of the paper?
Marginal (1)

> *** Presentation: How do you rate the clarity of the paper?
Somewhat suitable (2)

> *** Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity, impact, and technical depth of the paper.

Did not explain their delay budget as well as the factors that affect their decisions. Also, the reselection after outage means no reliability and we need a high reliable link.

> *** Strengths: What are the major reasons for accepting the paper?

The scenario and the explanations are good and clear. The chosen collection of relevant references regarding state of art is fair enough.

> *** Weaknesses: What are the most important reasons for NOT accepting the paper?

No mathematical models to proof the concepts that he claims cause latency is affected by different factors which should be mentioned and mapped here to understand how do they impact the routing

> *** Detailed comments and recommendation: Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the Guest Editors for assessing the paper. Also, provide feedback to the authors.

- Make more investigations regarding the delay budget and the affected factors from the environment, as well as network architecture and processing
- Try to simulate the radio environment with full required randomness in the Nosie and interference
- Think about how does the traffic model of the interferes look like and how does it affect the performance
- Check the references regarding the required metrics to evaluate the work


======= JSAC URLLC review 4 =======

> *** Suitability: Is the paper suitable for the JSAC special issue on URLLC in Wireless Networks?
Somewhat suitable (2)

> *** Originality: How do you rate the novelty of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Technical content: How do you rate the technical level of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Presentation: How do you rate the clarity of the paper?
Weak (0)

> *** Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity, impact, and technical depth of the paper.

This paper proposes using interface diversity to support ultra-reliable low latency communications in industrial environment. In particular, the authors consider a multiple relays with multi-hops and multiple destination system, and introduce an adaptive algorithm to choose the best path from the source to destination in terms of least delay. The considered topic is important and relevant. However, the basic idea of the proposed solution is not novel at all. It is hard to find any technical contribution that has any impact on the society.

> *** Strengths: What are the major reasons for accepting the paper?

This paper proposes using interface diversity to support ultra-reliable low latency communications in industrial environment, and introduces an adaptive algorithm to choose the best path from the source to destination in terms of least delay. However, the reviewer cannot see any reason for accepting this paper.

> *** Weaknesses: What are the most important reasons for NOT accepting the paper?

The idea of using interface diversity to improve ultra-high reliability is not novel. The proposed adaptive algorithm is simple and heuristic and the contribution is marginal.

Some notions are not defined in the first time they are used. For example, what are the RL1 and RL2 mentioned in the contribution?

> *** Detailed comments and recommendation: Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the Guest Editors for assessing the paper. Also, provide feedback to the authors.