All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
Good work and keep continuing the same
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Good work, but here are a few more suggestions to improve your article. Please make those changes and re submit for review.
1.Given header keywords in Table 1, together with any heading, and all table perimeter names.
2. Authors have improved the language.
3. References have been updated to include some more recently published work.
Figures are OK.
The authors have carried out the various experiments as per identified problem statement.
5. They have updated the methodology section accordingly.
Dear Authors,
Good work still we need major improvements in the flow of the methods and validations. Please find reviewers' view update accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The topic of research is really interesting. But I found a few lacking in the paper.
The author didn't mention the flow chart of the proposed work. Proposed work must explain step by step according to the flow chart.
Secondly, What is the novelty of this work
Third, whether this entire work is study or research work. Somewhere author mentions it's as a study and somewhere he mentions it's a study. Kindly go with a strong proofread of your paper.
Not satisfactory
Once again author must revise this manuscript and submit it again.
Paper is clear and understandable. Format and structure of the manuscript is very clear.
Experimental methodology is discussed very clearly. No need for any updation.
Novelty exist in the paper, which impact to the credibility of the author.
Again appreciating the work done by the author. Nice work and structured manuscript.
1. Authors are required to improve the English language and some sentence structures need to be updated.
2 In some sections authors have written too many paragraphs for expressing their views. Need to update the style with some professional writing style.
3 Provide expanded from of abbreviations wherever used for the first time.
4. Make your Introduction section more technical than in the current form it just focuses on the basics of fog computing.
1- The calculation of the fitness value is not clarified in the proposed method.
2- More details are needed to clarify the proposed method flow chart.
3-Please check the proofreading of the paper
4-The quality of the article should be improved by giving more details about the contribution
5- The problem formulation part is not well-organized and the added value must be well described
6- The references are applicable but are not sufficient
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.