kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review

NSL > Education> Review
Alif - [WD'17] Your paper #1570328399 ('Real-Time Water Quality Monitoringwith Pub/Sub Architecture on Wireless Sensor Networks')
By :
Date : 2017-01-24
Views : 22

my paper is rejected in Wireless Days 2017. I will revise based on review comment and submit again to another conference very soon...



Dear Mr. Alif Pranata:

The 2017 Wireless Days conference Technical Program Committee has completed the review process for the regular technical program.
We regret to inform you that your paper #1570328399 ('Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring with Pub/Sub Architecture on Wireless Sensor Networks') cannot be accepted for publication in the Proceedings of 2017 Wireless Days conference.

The WD Technical Program Committee worked very hard to compile a strong technical program consisting of outstanding papers. We received a large number of high quality papers and, based on a rigorous review process, some good quality papers had to be rejected due to the lack of space.

The reviewers comments are appended below or can be found at http://edas.info/showPaper.php?m=1570328399 using your EDAS login name alifakbar@kumoh.ac.kr. These comments served as part of the basis for the Technical Program Committee's decision, and they may be of use to you in your future submission.

On behalf of the WD'17 Technical Program Committee, we would like to thank you for submitting your work to 2017 Wireless Days conference and encourage you to pursue further your research in this exciting field.

Regards,
Manuel Ricardo and Rui Campos, General Chairs
Ricardo Morla and José Ruela, Technical Program Chairs

-----
======= Review 1 =======

> *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate).

Authors propose a pub/sub based WSN architecture for water quality monitoring. Authors implemented their architecture using Arduino platforms. They concluded that water temperature is inversely proportional to dissolved oxygen and pH value.
Eventhought authors carried out heavy experiments, the results of this work would be more interesting for agronomy community.
There exist many quality monitoring platforms, so it is not clear from this paper what is original except the conclusion that water temperature is inversely proportional to dissolved oxygen and pH value. Also there is no performance evaluation from networking perspective of the proposed architecture.

> *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper.
Working in this area of research (2)

> *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Little (4)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty.
Marginal work and simple contribution. (4)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Well written. (2)

> *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected
Reject (5)

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

> *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate).

The paper although interesting, is related to a topic that has already been very thoroughly studied and investigated.
Approaches as MQTT, AMQP, XMPP are being widely used, but are not referenced correctly
The authors should update the bibliography section and clearly state which actual improvement they provide with respect to the state of the art.

The authors should clearly state which are the objectives of their paper. Are they proposing the "must have" of the best solution for this specific problem or are they simply providing some hints on pros and cons of the different available solutions. Not even the abstract gives any indication about this.

Then, according to the aims of the authors, they should restructure the paper focusing on a more elaborated description of the proposal and of the evaluation, giving the proper details of the approach used.

Moreover, another point that is very lightly treated but that should require more input is on the issues and cost of implementing this types of solutions

> *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper.
Working in this area of research (2)

> *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (2)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty.
Marginal work and simple contribution. (4)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected
Weak reject (4)

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

> *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate).

The authors have implemented a water quality monitoring system using a wireless sensor network with the pub/sub architecture. Tests were conducted in an aquarium and confirm the relationship between temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH level.

The main contribution is the implementation.

The authors should present results related to wireless networking. They state that "Motivated by those problems and challenges, this paper is aimed at determining the quality of water based on the measurements of oxygen, temperature, and pH value of the water.". This is related to chemistry.

The authors state that "This pub/sub architecture combined with wireless communication using ZigBee protocol shows the main uniqueness of this paper.", but the reviewer sees no strong contribution in this. Moreover, the authors state that "Hence, characteristics of wireless sensor networks to remote water quality monitoring needs to be studied based on the type of sensors required to monitor water quality, availability of bandwidth and frequent disconnection, quality of service required (QoS) on data transmission, urgency of transmission, and transmission data types.", but no results about these characteristics are presented.

Circuit diagrams are not presented in a detailed way.

The experiments are very simple. It seems that just one run was executed. The authors must present mean values of several runs of the experiments, including the variance of the results; e.g., confidence intervals, as this may change conclusions.

The paper must be carefully reviewed. There are several odd expressions. There are no units in Figure 8.

Other issues:
- What do you mean by "One of the work reported that by using publisher and subscriber, network communication can be more efficient in case of round-trip latency and bandwidth"?
- Please review some "strong sentences" such as "The system runs on HTTP protocol for this interface, which is complementary to the ZigBee protocol used for communication among relay and gateway nodes as explained in hardware architecture, and in turn make the system works perfectly." and "These checkings were performed more than once and it is revealed that the system can work perfectly.".

> *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper.
Truly expert in this area of research (1)

> *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Acceptable (3)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty.
Questionable work with severe flaws. (5)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected
Reject (5)