Title: Energy Saving MAC Protocol for UAV-assisted Data Aggregation in Wireless Sensor Networks
Journal: Computer Communications
Dear Professor. Kim,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Computer Communications. I regret to inform you that your paper is not acceptable for publication. We have completed the review of your manuscript and a summary is appended below. The reviewers have advised against publication of your manuscript in the current form, and the requested work exceeds a major revision. I must therefore reject it at this time. For your information and guidance, any specific comments explaining why I have reached this decision and those received from reviewers, if available, are listed at the end of this letter.
You have the option of resubmitting a substantially revised version of your paper, which would be considered as a new submission. If you decide to do this, you should refer to the reference number of the current paper and include a cover letter which explains in detail how the paper has been changed or not, in reply to the Editor and Reviewer comments.
You can learn about the established tradition of COMCOM and past publications on the topic of your submission at Computer Communications site. (see in particular "Search in this journal" right below the red area). This is a convenient tool to search recent and past papers that may be relevant to your work.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Comments from the editors and reviewers:
- After careful analysis of the paper and the reviewer comments, it seems that although the paper is promising but still it has several flaws which make it unsuitable for publication at current level.
This paper presented an extensive literature review and analysis of dynamic pricing techniques used for ITS. Various problems solved by dynamic pricing techniques, importance of various evaluation parameters, limitations of dynamic pricing techniques and their applications are also discussed in this paper. Different taxonomies exploring various issues of dynamic pricing are presented in a structured manner. Then advantages and limitations of various dynamic pricing techniques are also explored. The existing challenges and future research directions of dynamic pricing in ITS are also presented in the paper. Overall, the paper sheds light on different aspects of dynamic pricing schemes in ITS. The paper is well structured, easy to follow and covers extensive literature. Following minor comments would further help to improve the readability of the paper.
1. The title of the paper includes "smart cities"; however, the abstract does not include a single instance of this word. The authors can use "smart cities" instead of "cities" and can further link up ITS with smart cities.
2. Following the comment above, the Introduction section can also be modified to include the flavour of smart cities.
3. Font sizes in Fig. 2 are not legible.
4. Section 2.1 needs to be first introduced before explaining about it in context of ITS.
5. In section 3, the authors can discuss briefly about their review method (maybe add a figure depicting the same?) before discussing sub-sections.
6. As section 4 is an important section of this paper, the authors are advised to write more content in 4.x sub-sections, while the reviewer feels that 4.3.x sub-sections can be merged in 4.3 and can just be represented as simple definitions in boldface font.
7. Section 4.4 mentions some assumptions about the papers reported "in this section only". However, the reviewer did not find any reference in section 4. If these assumptions are pre-requisites for section 5, these should be included in section 5 (and not 4).
8. Even though the authors have created tables to summarise various studies, however, their nutshell outcome should also be discussed in the text such as in Section 5.5.
9. Some sections are fairly short and discusses just one paper such as 5.2.2, 5.4.2. Authors are advised to add more literature in such sections.
10. The authors are advised to proof-read the paper before final submission to remove any typos and grammatical mistakes.
Honestly, I find the article very difficult to read. The authors claim that the objective of this paper is to resolve the PDR, and energy requirements which improve network lifetime. Unfortunately, the proposed solution is very difficult to understand. The authors use many objectives, move from one section to another without a clear link.
1. It is unclear why a MAC solution reducing transmission power is required for UAVs. How much flight time is gained by this approach? According to my experience, a negligible time.
2. In a distributed channel access environment, the concept of network throughput is very hard to conceive. The definition provided by the authors seems inadequate.
3. Brownian motion node mobility model in UAVs will lead to more collisions, on the other side the contention window size is too large for the proposed model. These parameters do not seem to be realistic.
4. What does "schedule interval is set at 100 with a contention window size of 31". Do you send a packet every 131 seconds?
5. There is nothing noble in UAV WSN data gathering model presented by the authors.
6. Figures need to add more clarity in concepts, and the tables with comparisons state of art techniques should be added.
7. Please provide numerical performances in comparison to the state-of-the-art mechanisms.
8. The paper is written with poor grammar and contains awkward expressions that probably appear by using some automatic translation mechanism.
9. The author is confused between the word UAV and UAVs.
10. The applications of UAVs need to be explored by the authors.
- The authors have presented NSL-MAC which is a data-link layer UAV-based communication protocol. The aim of this protocol is to improve the performance of the UAV-based data gathering system in WSN along with minimum energy usage. The paper is very confusing as it do not clear the usage of UAV in the proposed protocol. There are several flaws in the overall structure which makes it necessary to rework on the paper to a next level.
The introduction do not highlight the major motivation behind the proposed protocol
Even the related work is not able to stress on the novel aspect of the protocol which otherwise is claimed. A comparative table on the basis of different feature should be provided to highlight the novel potentials of the proposed scheme.
The role of cloud server is not clear.
The font of figures is not consistent, some where it is very large and some places its not legible.
Why the ground nodes act as cluster head and how they are selected.
How the energy efficiency is achieved is not clear in the paper.
The evaluations performed are very limited and no comparisons with existing state of the art is provided Only a single comparison is provided which does not justify the superiority.
Have questions or need assistance?
For further assistance, please visit our Customer Support site. Here you can search for solutions on a range of topics, find answers to frequently asked questions, and learn more about EVISE¢ç via interactive tutorials. You can also talk 24/5 to our customer support team by phone and 24/7 by live chat and email.
Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Reg. No. 33156677.