kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Williams, Tactical Remodeling of Unrecoverable Data in MIL-STD-1553 Network for Industrial-IoBT" to IEEE ICC 2020.
By :
Date : 2020-01-28
Views : 209

Dear Mr. Nwadiugwu Williams Paul Chukwuka,

Thank you for submitting your paper 1570601120 "Tactical Remodeling of Unrecoverable Data in MIL-STD-1553 Network for Industrial-IoBT" to IEEE ICC 2020. This year, IEEE ICC received over 2,100 submissions. All papers underwent a rigorous review process. After careful consideration of the review comments and scores, and consultation with the symposium/track chair(s), we regret to inform you that your paper could not be accepted for inclusion in the IEEE ICC 2020 program.

The reviews are available in the EDAS system, which we hope you will find useful to improve your paper. Thank you for submitting your paper to IEEE ICC 2020, and we hope that you will be able to attend the conference in Dublin in June 2020.

Sincerely,
IEEE ICC 2020
Technical Program Chair
Luiz DaSilva, Trinity College, Dublin

Technical Program Co Chairs
Min Song, Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
Jianwei Huang, Chinese University Hong Kong

Reviews
3 ICC 2020 Symposiums
Review 1 (Reviewer A)
Relevance and timeliness Technical content and scientific rigor Novelty and originality Quality of presentation Good (4)
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)
Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3)
Substantial revision work is needed. (2)

Strong aspects (Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper)
Preliminary reviews are presented to formulate the problem. An algorithm is proposed and supplemented with math equations.

Weak aspects (Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?)
1. This paper has very poor readability due to improper sentence structure , poor choice of vocabulary and frequent typos.
2. In the Results section, the figures are presented without any further discussion or explanation, which impairs the author's claim on their proposed algorithm.
3. Little justification was given on why Bezier curve is used. It would be better to give an introduction on the concept and state the motivation of using it.
4. Sponsor acknowledgments should appear in the unnumbered footnote on the first page according to the latest IEEE ICC conference paper template.

Recommended changes (Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.)
Basically all weak points should be addressed.
1. Run professional proofread on the paper.
2. Add discussion to the results section.
3. More contexts on Bezier curve.
4. Following IEEE ICC conference paper template.


Review 2 (Reviewer C)
Quality of presentation Acceptable (3)
Marginal work and simple contribution. Some flaws. (2)
Minor variations on a well investigated subject. (2)
Substantial revision work is needed. (2)

Strong aspects (Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper)
This paper tries to address the data recovery problem for military standard network using Bezier curve approximation. An approximate data packet instead of the original data is re-transmitted with the next data packet when the error correction fails.

Weak aspects (Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?)
It is unclear whether the proposed scheme targets at reducing the worst-case latency of data transmission or reducing the amount of data transmitted through the network. Since re-transmission is still needed and it waits until the transmission of the next data packet, the proposed approach may not be able to reduce the latency. Besides, additional computations are needed to derive the approximate data and causes additional latency and computation overheads.

Fig. 4 and 5 shows the approximation accuracy. However, these data does not show the resulted data transmission latency or bandwidth reduction, and does not justify the proposed schemes.
Recommended changes (Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.)
The advantage of the proposed schemes need to be clarified and simulation results are needed to justify the proposed schemes. The writing of this paper needs substantial improvement.

Review 3 (Reviewer E)
Quality of presentation Good (4)
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)
Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3)
Substantial revision work is needed. (2)

Strong aspects (Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper)
1. The topic chosen is of extreme importance as data recovery in military scenarios is extremely important.
2. The paper is well documented.

Weak aspects (Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?)
1. The paragraphs in the Introduction are one line each, and they are too big. It is impossible to understand what the authors are trying to convey.
2. No Related work has been provided, therefore it is impossible to understand what kind of works have been done in this area.
3. The paper lacks motivation describing why the authors chose to work in this domain.
4. In the abstract, the authors speak about how reconstructing data that was unrecoverable by error correction is extremely urgent for battlefields, however, there is no practical example of how their proposed scheme can be implemented in such cases.
5. Lacks a comparison of their results with the existing schemes.
6. The simulation results doesn't depict how the results are going to vary in the presence of faulty RTS/CTS packets.
Recommended changes (Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.)
1. Try and break the long sentences in the Introduction into two-three shorter ones, so that it becomes easy to understand.
2. A paragraph on Related work highlighting the drawbacks of the present schemes along with the motivation of why the authors chose to propose their scheme should be included for better readability and understanding.
3. Provide a comparison of your results with the existing schemes.
4. Update the simulation results in the presence of faulty RTS/CTS packets.