kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Esmot Ara Tuli, Dong-Seong Kim and Jae-Min Lee,"Latency Based Reliability Analysis for Naval Combat Systems", ICTC 2020, Ramada Plaza Jeju island, October 21-23, 2020 (Accepted) (N8)
By : Esmot Ara Tuli
Date : 2020-09-15
Views : 40

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

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

> *** 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.

The presentation should be improved. For example, dot should be removed at the title.

> *** 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)

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

> *** 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?
Poor (1)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Marginal (2)

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

This paper presents the relation between number of available channels and transmission reliability. They model the reliability using the reyleigh fading model and calculate the mean time between failures.

It seems like this paper shows a preliminary result that motivates other work such as developing an algorithm, but it is hard to derive the conclusion from the paper in this state. For example, the paper says that having more channels help improve reliability, but the graph shows that mean time between failure is low when the number of channel is high. If the mean time between failure is low, doesn't it mean the reliability is low? In overall, it is very hard to catch the idea from the paper.

> *** 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 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?
Marginal (2)

> *** 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?
Poor (1)

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

The manuscript is very poorly written and needs to be polished and presented more clearly. Some definitions are missing and there are redundant figures. It looks more like an initial draft than a revised manuscript.

> *** 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)