Dear Professor Kim:
I regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in IETE Technical Review. The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter, along with those of the editor who coordinated the review of your paper. I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so.
Thank you for considering IETE Technical Review. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
Dr Jagadesh Kumar
Editor in Chief, IETE Technical Review
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Comments to the Author
This paper is poor in writing. I can not understand what the authors want to discuss. It seems that the authors develop some algorithms for the source node to select the optimal routing path to minimize delay and energy consumption. This paper is not understandable and does not seem to have novel contributions.
Comments to the Author
Summary: This article proposes a wireless network reconfiguration process to reduce the reduce the latency and throughput between source and destination wireless node coordinated by a parent node. The data transmission happens from one node to another through relay nodes, which dynamically reconfigures the network with a new path estimation. This article mainly focuses on the Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC) for the industrial networks to be more resilient for node failures.
1. Article states ¡°re-designing the entire wireless networks¡±, what does ¡°redesign¡± mean in the context of article? Does this mean reconfiguration?
2. Describe the network settings, link properties, node capabilities in detail. In the current state of article, it is not clear how these wireless nodes are deployed and operate over the distributed connections.
3. Please present the flow chart of the proposed mechanism. It is very hard to comprehend the overall mechanism in the entirety.
4. Please define the ¡°parent node¡±, ¡°relay¡±, ¡°source¡±, and ¡°destination¡± nodes early in the article to make references to the proposed mechanism.
5. Also please define ¡°Noise¡± and ¡°Interference¡± and how does these factors influence your overall network.
6. Where does the optimizations and algorithms are implemented? In the parent node? Does the path computation results are computed based on a event or proactively applied? Please show in a flow-chart.
7. Does the proposed mechanism follow Software-Defined principles? How does SDN align to the proposed mechanism? Please describe in the related work section.
8. In general, please double check for grammar, spacing, and typos in the article.
9. Algorithm 1 has forward references to Algorithm 2, and Algorithm 3. Can you order these Algorithms in such a way that does not require forward references?
10. Please combine the figures for relative comparison between plots. Currently the latency and throughput plots are separated even if the range of x and y axes are of same range and data strongly related to each other.
11. Please define and describe what is an ¡°Identification¡±, which has been extensively used to describe the system performance. If there is any other way this parameter can be transformed to more realistic variable that would be helpful for being more comprehensible.