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 has expressed satisfaction with the revisions of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Based on reviewers’ comments, you may resubmit the revised manuscript for further consideration. Please consider the reviewers’ comments carefully and submit a list of responses to the comments along with the revised manuscript.
[# 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/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
I have added all the review comments in the field for additional comments. The topic of the paper is relevant to the journal.
The Methods section of an experimental paper design details precisely what the research entails. But there are other comments, which are written in the comments below.
The authors claimed that their protocol had a good result compared with the standard one, where all analyses and comparisons performed on the data are reported in the paper.
Because of the widespread interest in the topic, conducting research on it in depth could prove to be both necessary and beneficial. On the other hand, the following modifications need to be taken into consideration:
Comments: -
1. The paper is written very well, and the text is easy to understand and not confusing at all.
2. I suggest enhancing figure number 5, and in line 337, the word " figure" appeared twice.
3. A typo with " FCEA".
4. The paper is Partially technically sound and needs to enhance.
5. The flowchart has many typos and needs to enhance.
6. Equation number 1 does not match with the text.
7. Was the comparison made with one protocol? Why?
8. This statement, " When a node receives a packet from the wireless channel, the Layer II handling and processing is performed by the data link layer while the network stack, e.g., TCP/IP, handles the packet and performs Layer III and IV operations. For example, calculation and verification of the header checksum, verifying the TTL field, etc. Layer IV generally checks and detects errors in the payload" this is not clear and needs to enhance.
9. FCEA has appeared in many places and has typos.
10. The manuscript presents a proposed routing protocol for a wireless mesh network that focuses on reducing energy consumption and improving network lifetime.
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.