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.
Based on the positive recommendation from the reviewers, the paper is up to the standard of PeerJ. Thank you for your submission.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
The authors revised the manuscript well to answer my questions.
Thank you for your careful revision according to my suggestions. However, please take care about the format of the manuscript, since there are several obvious minor issues, for example,
'havethe' and 'sameaverage' in line 413.
Nothing
The authors addressed all the comments and concerns, the manuscript stands for acceptance.
The authors addressed all the comments and concerns, the manuscript stands for acceptance.
The authors addressed all the comments and concerns, the manuscript stands for acceptance.
As pointed out by the reviewer, please provide the answer with revision in each point explicitly to fasten the review process.
There are still several mistakes in the revised manuscript, e.g. "Next, Next, we describe ..." in line 304. Try to proofread the manuscript again to make it more readable.
The authors have already well explain the problems I raised.
Actually, the modification of the authors still does not meet my requirement. The authors just describe the data again in tables by words, but did not discover the deeper reasons hidden behind the results. For example:
- As the authors mentioned, in Table 2, "the best algorithm is the RGS" in line 395, why the RGS is better than others? ? And why the STFL is the worst?
- In Table 3, "algorithm SG2 has the lowest average gap variation of 0.01 in two scenarios when n=45 and n=55" in line 402. In total, what is the effect of n on the algorithm? Does this result indicate that the larger n is, the better the performance of the algorithm? If not, why is this happening?
- In Table 4, "all algorithms have the same average gap variation of 0.01 except algorithm SGL2" in line 405, why the algorithm SGL2 is different from others?
- In Table 5, "the algorithm SGL2 do not get impacted by the changes in the number of packets n" in line 408, why SGL2 is so special compare with others? What is the reason for this?
and so on.
I suggest that the authors could summarize each table in one or two sentences to draw some general conclusions, rather than just describing the tables again in words.
Please provide the answer for each comment constructively including the explicit statement in the revised paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal 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 rebuttal 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 rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal 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) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
This article basicly meets the standards of PeerJ on language, lierature references, structure, figures, tables, and raw data shared. However, there are several minor mistakes in this manuscript and authors should proofread the manuscript carefully:
- 'Ths' -> 'This', line 195.
- 'use' -> 'uses', line 207.
- 'foes' -> 'goes', line 306.
- What's the difference between the notations 'packet Pt_j' and 'packet j' in line 227 and 228.
- The title of Figure 1 is not self-explanatory enough for readers to understand, which entitled 'Novel architecture with two routers'. What architecture did you construct? and for what?
- Authors enhance the previous work of (Sarhan, Jemmali & Ben Hmida, 2021), so it's better to discuss the difference and improvement of the proposed method compared with the previous work in detail.
- The introduction of the five proposed algorithms needs more detail. I suggest that the authors improve the description at lines 281-287 to provide more justification for your study. For example, why do you design these five algorithms? what is the purpose of each algorithm?
- The experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method to minimize the transmitted time, but it seems that the authors did not discuss about how to ensure the security of data transmission using the proposed model.
The discussion of the experimental results is inadequate. The authors only show the observed results, but did not effectively summarize the results and analyze the possible reasons for the results.
no comment
The paper has poor readability due to grammatical mistakes and improper formatting of content.
The related work and introduction sections lacking focus. The author makes quite bold statements, such as the opening sentences in the abstract where is claimed that “features such as connectivity, transparency, hierarchy and openness… these featured are no longer considered significant”. I would strongly disagree, although I acknowledge many of the drawbacks of the existing Internet protocol.
Title of the paper mentions “… secure outsourcing in crisis”. However, this is not a topic discussed in the paper.
The author claims to propose a future network paradigm, but only offers a few experiments on average gap and transmissions time. The author states in the conclusion that the proposed paradigm shows promising results for future development. However, the presented results cover few features which the author have pinpointed as sever drawback / problems facing the internet today.
The tables lack explanation and units. The definition of the performance metrics is not very clear.
The author claims to propose a future network paradigm, but only offers a few experiments on average gap and transmissions time. R
The authors to not discuss potential drawback of the proposed paradigm.
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.