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 addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Follow review comments and submit a revised version
No comment.
No comment, everything is really good.
No comment.
This work was really good before (to my opinion) but now the authors did the great work adding all experimental results files, updated references list and added adequate description so I do not have any additional improvements to add.
Authors have incorporated all previous reviewers comments and this paper can be accepted in current form.
Good
Novel findings
N/A
All points of major revision have been addressed.
It is updated now.
Validated.
1) In the references try to include latest (2022-2023) references.
2) Add system model diagram along with proposed workflow.
3) Precise the conclusion.
4) Improve the English Language.
Please follow review comments, perform requested corrections, and resubmit a revised version
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
• Manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner.
• Cited references are not mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant, does not include an excessive number of self-citations (I will add some details in the end).
• Manuscript sound scientifically.
• Figures and schemes are appropriate, show the real data, are easy to interpret and understand.
• Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
• Dear authors, please update your references where possible, they should not be older then 5-7 years.
no comment
The data on which the conclusions are available in an acceptable discipline-specific repository. The data in my opinion is robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
no comments
3. Improve the structure of the introduction.
4. Following research articles can be added in your manuscript:
o Khabbaz, Maurice, Chadi Assi, and Sanaa Sharafeddine. "Multihop V2U path availability analysis in UAV-assisted vehicular networks." IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8.13 (2021): 10745-10754.
o Islambouli, Rania, et al. "Towards trust-aware IoT hashing offloading in mobile edge computing." 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC). IEEE, 2020.
o Rahman, Sawsan Abdul, et al. "Internet of things intrusion detection: Centralized, on-device, or federated learning?." IEEE Network 34.6 (2020): 310-317.
o Hassan, Muhammad Abul, et al. "Intelligent Transportation Systems in Smart City: A Systematic Survey." 2023 International Conference on Robotics and Automation in Industry (ICRAI). IEEE, 2023.
1. Explicitly describe the pros and cons of each existing method
2. The paper is readable but needs improvement in terms of grammar, suitable words, sentence selection, etc.
No Comments
No Comments
No comments
Comments:
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the evaluation of this important document. It is an excellent opportunity to learn and share academic knowledge.
The authors proposed a fuzzy programming approach that this article to solve the multiple objectives piece selection problem in P2P network. The topic of this study is significant for the Content Delivery Networks. The motivation behind the study was presented clearly. The surveys on CDN and P2P are sufficient. However, the paper is not ready for publication due to the following reasons:
1. The paper is poorly organized, and it is not clear what exact problem the paper is addressing.
2. The contribution of this study is unclear. It is difficult to understand the limitations of existing works and the difference between the proposed work and other existing works.
3. The validation of the proposed approach is insufficient.
Here are the detailed comments:
1.
The motivations behind the specific design of the proposed approach are not clear.
2.
The authors should consider using health-related data for their study. The MNIST dataset used in the study is not relevant to e-healthcare systems.
3.
Author should polish the titles at all levels of the paper, highlight the hierarchy of the paper, and correspond to the technical route of the introduction.
4. Improve grammatical and typos-related issues of the manuscript.
5. Authors should outline the significant contribution to the knowledge at the end of section 1 or 2
6. The literatures required improvement by identify problem, method, solution and results in logical presentation
7. In the end of Introduction Section, the Section distribution should be modified along with contributions.
8. The organization of this paper is good but needs much work on few points, such as the general discussion and general information must be avoided, especially in the introduction section. The authors need to focus on the main challenges and the main problem of the research.
9. Improve Figures for example Fig 1, and some other text (caption) is displayed mismatch.
10. Remove general formulas and add your proposed approach based mathematical description.
11. In the references try to include latest (2020 - 2022) references and style and arrange in ascending order.
12. Review your result section, need more accurate explanation. Also, check mathematical expression.
13. Explain more the close and open interval
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.