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.
The authors have revised the article according to the reviewer comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article clarity is good enough. Literature review is comprehensive and references are valid and sufficient. The paper is well-structured and figures/tables present the information nicely.
The methods are concrete and experiments are convincing.
The results are valid and well interpreted.
All previous concerns are well addressed and the paper can be accepted.
I am thankful to the authors for considering my suggestion in improving the article. The authors have addressed all comments. I have no further concerns.
No concerns
No concerns
No concerns
The authors should revise the article in view of the reviewers comments.
[# 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/ #]
Basic facts are clear and no ambiguity is seen.
The methods are correct and designs are concrete. The research objectives are well achieved.
The findings are valid and results are convincing. The discussions and arguments are well established.
See attached PDF
• How do the authors say that VANET communication suffers from noise and shadowing? The mobility indeed causes fading, however, the noise and showing with fading should be properly explained with relative references in VANETs.
• Why did the authors use the Rayleigh channel in the proposed system? There should be a proper justification. Why do authors not use another channel such as Rician?
• I suggest there should be a comparison between the results of BER among Rayleigh and Rician channels, as BER is normally much higher in Rician compared to Rayleigh channels.
• The first paragraph discusses the issues in VANET which are fading and unreliable communication. However valid references are necessary.
• A huge number of abbreviations used in the contributions make the reading difficult. Moreover, it is suggested to put the contributions in small sentences or bullet points.
• The results graphs are not supported by necessary discussions.
• There is a suggestion to include a short section of related work to differentiate the work more clearly.
• The discussion and a necessary use case in the proposed model are missing. What type of channels are used? What type of distributed computing units are used? How many vehicles are considered in the simulation codes?
The discussion and a necessary use case in the proposed model are missing. What type of channels are used? What type of distributed computing units are used? How many vehicles are considered in the simulation codes?
No concerns
NIL
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.