kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review Comment

NSL > Education> Review Comment
WILLIAMS - Ultrawideband WSN Channel Model for Next Generation Wireless Avionic System
By :
Date : 2018-04-16
Views : 46

Dear Prof. Kim,

Your manuscript has been evaluated by the reviewers. The consensus is that the manuscript requires significant revision and must be rereviewed to determine if the revised manuscript adequately addresses the concerns of the referees.

In resubmitting, please provide a detailed list of all changes made in the manuscript, keyed to the page and line numbers. Please be aware that the resubmitted manuscript must be uploaded within 90 days of this email, and that a manuscript returned later than that will be treated as a new (not revised) submission.

Thank you for your contribution. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Professor Roberto Sabatini
Technical Editor
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

---------------------------------------

Reviewer #1

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Is the title appropriate, such that someone doing related research would discover this article in an automated search, such as via IEEEXplore?):

YES

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Does the manuscript list appropriate and relevant key words, and are these also included in the abstract?):

YES

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Are the citations sufficient for the depth and/or breadth of the paper, and do the authors reference recent Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems (T-AES) manuscripts? (Note that inclusion of T-AES citations is not necessarily a requirement for publication, but a lack of citations can be an indicator that the paper does not fall within the scope of the journal.)):

YES

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?):

YES, BUT IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Is the significance of the paper explained relative to previous work?):

NOT COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Is the paper clearly written and well organized?):

YES, BUT IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Briefly, describe the contribution of the paper.):

This manuscript proposes the use of ultrawideband wireless sensor network channel model for next generation wireless avionic system. The work, if properly written has the potential of adding values to aircraft design, particularly from the standpoint of overall aircraft weight reduction and cost effectiveness on the part of the large network of cables associated with the current aircraft designs.

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author - Suggestions for improving the paper.):

Major Concerns:
1. There are too many irrelevant descriptions in the manuscript. Readers can be referred to appropriate literature where necessary and the entire text should be pruned down.
2. The authors should state in quantitative terms, and also relate it clearly to their problem statement, the implications of current large wiring systems in aircraft systems.
3. Why did the authors concentrate on the wings alone?
4. Was network failure anticipated? In that case, what would be an alternative? Authors should provide explanation on the above questions.
5. The Problem Statement section is too long and monotonous. This should be made precise, stating clearly what the problems are, and why proffering solutions would be necessary.
6. The literature review of the study should be revisited. Authors should extract the research gaps from the existing literature and articulate how the current efforts attempt to close the gaps. Discussions should also caption comparison of the currents results with previous efforts.
7. Detail description of S-V model is not necessary. The description should be very concise. Readers should be referred to the mother paper and related references.
8. The implementation time should be discussed. The authors need to stress the practical implications of their results.
9. The key conclusions drawn from the study should be clearly stated in the Conclusions section.

Reviewer #2

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Is the title appropriate, such that someone doing related research would discover this article in an automated search, such as via IEEEXplore?):

Yes

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Does the manuscript list appropriate and relevant key words, and are these also included in the abstract?):

Can be improved

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Are the citations sufficient for the depth and/or breadth of the paper, and do the authors reference recent Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems (T-AES) manuscripts? (Note that inclusion of T-AES citations is not necessarily a requirement for publication, but a lack of citations can be an indicator that the paper does not fall within the scope of the journal.)):

Can be improved

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?):

Yes

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Is the significance of the paper explained relative to previous work?):

Can be improved

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Is the paper clearly written and well organized?):

Can be improved

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Briefly, describe the contribution of the paper.):

The manuscript performed some simulation studies on using IR-UWB for avionics' wireless networking. Although the concept and solutions of UWB radio is not new, the work has some interesting application background related to aircraft control systems and potential of UWB radios in such application. The application scope of the manuscript fits the scope of AES.

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author - Suggestions for improving the paper.):

See attachment


Reviewer #3

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Is the title appropriate, such that someone doing related research would discover this article in an automated search, such as via IEEEXplore?):

Yes.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Does the manuscript list appropriate and relevant key words and are these also included in the abstract?):

Yes.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Are the citations sufficient for the depth and/or breadth of the paper, and do the authors reference recent Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems (T-AES) manuscripts? (Note that inclusion of T-AES citations is not necessarily a requirement for publication, but a lack of citations can be an indicator that the paper does not fall within the scope of the journal.)):

1-Yes, citations sufficient for the depth and breadth of the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?):

Yes.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Is the significance of the paper explained relative to previous work?):

Yes.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Is the paper clearly written and well organized?):

On page 2, the principal contributions of the paper should be written in 2 bullets. The first bullet is OK, the second and the third should be included in the first bullet, the fourth bullet is OK and should be written as second bullet.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Briefly, describe the contribution of the paper.):

1- Introduction of a novel cooperative relay selection scheme in IR-UWB for adaptive wing system of a Boeing 787 aircraft.
2- Introduction of an algorithm to determine the timing constraints of switches for real-time analysis in an avionic
systems technology for relay nodes, in which the worst case switching delay must be predictable for all packet delivery.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author - Suggestions for improving the paper.):

1- On page 2, the principal contributions of the paper should be written in 2 bullets. The first bullet is OK, the second and the third should be included in the first bullet, the fourth bullet is OK and should be written as second bullet.

2- The references are badly written. Should be rewrite them carefully. Many references has two different numbers for publication year?!

3- Figure 5 should be replaced with high resolution one and if it from a reference, then should be cited.

4- Figures 6 and 7 should be replaced with high resolution ones.


Reviewer #4

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Is the title appropriate, such that someone doing related research would discover this article in an automated search, such as via IEEEXplore?):

WSN--needs to be spelled out in the paper somewhere.

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Does the manuscript list appropriate and relevant key words, and are these also included in the abstract?):

Yes

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Are the citations sufficient for the depth and/or breadth of the paper, and do the authors reference recent Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems (T-AES) manuscripts? (Note that inclusion of T-AES citations is not necessarily a requirement for publication, but a lack of citations can be an indicator that the paper does not fall within the scope of the journal.)):

Yes

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?):

Yes

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Is the significance of the paper explained relative to previous work?):

Yes

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Is the paper clearly written and well organized?):

There are several grammatical and spelling errors. For example, the plural of aircraft is aircraft, not aircrafts. The authors are confused regarding the use of avionic versus avionics. Some acronyms are not spelled out in the paper.

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Briefly, describe the contribution of the paper.):

Development of a model for assessing the switching loads using this type of wireless network.

Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author - Suggestions for improving the paper.):

None.
Attachments
Attachment 1:   ÷ Reviewer.pdf(131.3KB)