kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Ikechi Saviour Igboanusi, Jae-Min Lee and Dong-Seong Kim, "Field Based Traffic Load Balancing for Industrial Wireless Sensor Network", 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Zaragoza, Spain, September 10-13,2019
By : Saviour
Date : 2019-07-02
Views : 282

C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [1 - I disagree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [1 - I disagree]

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 ------------------------------------- [0 - I strongly disagree]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [0 - I strongly disagree]
Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [1 - I disagree]

Comments:
The paper should undergo serious revision before
publication. I have difficulty understanding why you define
the work done by a sink as proportional to the area it
covers (1). That really needs to be explained. Further,
your application of Coulomb's law does not appear to have
any physical relation to the problem you are solving. I
have struggled to understand why you introduced it and how
you apply it in the simulations.

C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [1 - I disagree]
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 ------------------------------------------------------ [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 ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [2 - I am neutral]

Comments:
This paper addresses the problem of traffic balancing in WSNs to avoid
overloading of paths, and therefore of some nodes with a critical role in order to
enhance the operation life of the network.

The length of WiP papers is very restricted, but still there are concepts that have
to be explained in order to make the paper self contained. Here explain the role
and purpose of "sinks".

The introduction should better identify the weaknesses of current approaches and
state the two or three main points that this approach contributes as compared to
them.

The paper does not make full usage of all pages. Authors should take this as an
opportunity to improve the way in which they present the related work and their
key contribution purpose and motivation.

As it is now, Fig. 6 is of little use. Authors should explain it better.

The written style can be very much improved. Jus a few typos found at the start of
the paper:

Par. 1. "as sensor nodes has " -> "as sensor nodes have"
Par 1. "Ip camera" -> "IP camera"
Page 1, last par. "forward their packets to node in higher gradient" -> "forward
their packets to nodes in higher gradient" ??
Page 2, first par. "but in different time slot" -> "but in a different time slot"

Page 2, first par. "fig. 1" -> "Fig. 1"

C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [1 - I disagree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]

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 presents a new load balancing technique aiming
at increasing the fairness among the energy spent by
different cluster heads in the network and thus
increasing overall network life time.

The paper clearly describes the problem and considered
scenario, however the proposed approach and the results
could be presented in a better way. When presenting the
approach, some explanations could be added on why this
approach was selected over other possible ones; more
explanations could be added to formulas. Fig. 2 should be
explained at the point when it is mentioned (i.e., the
text from page 3 should be moved up). Moving to the
results, the figures themselves and what they show could
be described in more details. E.g., Fig. 6 is only
mentioned in conclusions. Finally, a discussion on how
the achieved results could be compared to related work
should be added. Also, there are several questions that
were not mentioned in the paper but could be discussed.
For example, in case of a new node entering a cluster,
how should forwarding nodes understand that they should
relay the data? How is scheduling adjusted? Also, is
there a trade-off when it comes to timing as some of the
nodes can be re-assigned to further located CHs and thus
require more time slots before their packets can be
delivered.

Also, even though the text is clear, additional proof-
reads are needed to improve the language. There were very
many grammar errors, especially in singular and plural
forms of verbs, articles. Also, there were few types,
extra spaces, sentences starting not from a capital
letter. Also Fig. 4 should not be mentioned in the text
before Fig. 3. And the text size in Fig. 3 should be
increased.

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 ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
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:
In this paper, the authors propose proposes a load
balancing mechanism to balance data traffic using sinks
in a dynamic manner. In particular, nodes will be aware
of the proper sink where to forward their data using the
gradient generated according to Coulombs Law.

The paper is clear and well written. The proposed
solution seems interesting and is well described. Results
obtained with simulations show good performances.

Accepted or Rejected?
The manuscript is marked as ACCEPTED.
The manuscript is not on the list of registered manuscripts.