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.
Congratulations, the reviewer is satisfied with the revisions and recommended the paper for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Miriam Leeser, a PeerJ 'Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have significantly revised the paper based on the reviewers' comments.
The authors have significantly revised the paper based on the reviewers' comments.
The authors have significantly revised the paper based on the reviewers' comments.
The authors have significantly revised the paper based on the reviewers' comments.
Thank you for your interest in this journal. After carefully examining the manuscript, reviews, and the reviewers' recommendations, this paper is not recommended for publication in its current form. Please address the reviewers' comments.
- The overall structure and organization of paper is satisfactory. However, I would recommend to re-write the abstract. Abstract should include brief introduction of parameterized Colored Petri Net (CPN), its importance and discussion on obtained results. Moreover, the introduction section is very lengthy in current form and contains very basic details.
- Related work should be before Evaluation section.
- The paper qualifies for up-to-date bibliography.
- The originality and novelty of the paper is low as it is just related to the Modelling, Simulation and Performance Evaluation of the IEEE 802.11e Protocol with Station Mobility. However, rigorous investigations are performed to good technical knowledge.
Conclusions are well stated.
- I have noticed several places where the definition or the grammar could be improved. I suggest that authors should make a thorough sweep of the paper to improve the quality of paper.
The paper is readable having a good structure.
- The work lacks novelty. The IEEE 802.11e protocol already exists. The authors have just done the performance evaluation of the protocol after modeling using CPN, which does not make any significant scientific contribution that is good enough for publication in this journal.
- Motivation of the work is missing.
- The simulation scenarios have not been motivated by considering real-life use-cases.
The performance evaluation is rigorous and the results have been explained in detail.
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.