kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review Comment

NSL > Works@NSL> About Review> Review Comment
Cosmas Ifeanyi Nwakanma,Alifia Putri Anantha, Fabliha Bushra Islam, Jae-Min Lee, Dong-Seong Kim, " 3GPP Release-16 for Industrial Internet of Things and Mission Critical Communications Beyond 5G", ICTC 2020, Ramada Plaza Jeju island, October 21-23, 2020 (Accepted)
By : Cosmas
Date : 2020-09-14
Views : 44

-------------- Reviews ------------------------------------

======= Review 1 =======

> *** Relevance: How well does the content fit the conference scope? Is this paper handling an important theme in this area?
Average (3)

> *** Completeness: Does this paper describe the problem clearly? Are the results of this paper reproducible via experiments (implementations, proofs)? How well is the result analysis done with the previous works? How clear is the paper's conclusion for the problem tackled?
Average (3)

> *** Originality: Does this paper include any novel approaches or new applications that have never been tried?
Average (3)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Average (3)

> *** Comments to authors: Please provide detailed comments to the authors.

This paper provides a review on the provisions of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 16.
The description is brief and easy to understand.

One suggestion is that the section III and IV should be combined because the two sections describe the open research issues in IIoT.

> *** Recommendation: Please provide your overall recommendation on the acceptance of the paper. (Final acceptance decisions will also consider literal responses to the questions below.)
Neutral (2)

======= Review 2 =======

> *** Relevance: How well does the content fit the conference scope? Is this paper handling an important theme in this area?
Good (4)

> *** Completeness: Does this paper describe the problem clearly? Are the results of this paper reproducible via experiments (implementations, proofs)? How well is the result analysis done with the previous works? How clear is the paper's conclusion for the problem tackled?
Average (3)

> *** Originality: Does this paper include any novel approaches or new applications that have never been tried?
Average (3)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Excellent (5)

> *** Comments to authors: Please provide detailed comments to the authors.



> *** Recommendation: Please provide your overall recommendation on the acceptance of the paper. (Final acceptance decisions will also consider literal responses to the questions below.)
Accept (4)

======= Review 3 =======

> *** Relevance: How well does the content fit the conference scope? Is this paper handling an important theme in this area?
Good (4)

> *** Completeness: Does this paper describe the problem clearly? Are the results of this paper reproducible via experiments (implementations, proofs)? How well is the result analysis done with the previous works? How clear is the paper's conclusion for the problem tackled?
Average (3)

> *** Originality: Does this paper include any novel approaches or new applications that have never been tried?
Average (3)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Average (3)

> *** Comments to authors: Please provide detailed comments to the authors.

It is recommended to contain more technical issues/proposals and performance evaluation results instead of a review or survey.

> *** Recommendation: Please provide your overall recommendation on the acceptance of the paper. (Final acceptance decisions will also consider literal responses to the questions below.)
Weak Accept (3)