Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 18th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 21st, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 16th, 2023 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 24th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 24, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thanks for addressing the reviewer's comments properly.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Clear now

Experimental design

methods are described with sufficient details and relevant information

Validity of the findings

conclusions are well stated

Additional comments

The authors have addressed my comments well.

·

Basic reporting

Thank you for following my comments to improve the manuscript.

Experimental design

Good work

Validity of the findings

Good research

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 21, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Although enriching with more recent and related references is needed, It is not essential to have specific ones mentioned in the reviewer comments.
More clarification for the contribution in the abstract is highly recommended.

**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.

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

clear
good structure
clear results

Experimental design

orignal
primary research
described well

Validity of the findings

conclusions supported by results

Additional comments

In this paper the authors have proposed a controller placement problem approach leveraging the critical switch awareness in SDN (software defined networking).
I recommend the following changes (must) be addressed by the authors:
Enlist the limitations of each work in the literature review.
Moreover, include some recent literature i.e. on the controller placement problem in SDN such as:
Ali, J. and Roh, B.H., 2022. An Effective Approach for Controller Placement in Software-Defined Internet-of-Things (SD-IoT). Sensors, 22(8), p.2992. and
Ali, J., Lee, S. and Roh, B.H., 2019, June. Using the analytical network process for controller placement in software defined networks (poster). In Proceedings of the 17th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (pp. 545-546).
Describe the motivation for the controller placement and novel contributions of your works.
What is the controller overhead? Can the authors represent it mathematically with the help of an equation or formula.
Include some future research directions.

·

Basic reporting

Please follow my comments to improve the manuscript.

1. Write the full meaning of SDWAN in abstract.

2. In "Algorithm2: Critical Switch Identification" and Equation no 17, what is SiBC? Discuss in detail.

3. Include a Flowchart for "Algorithm 3: Critical Switch Aware Network Partition (CSANP)"

4. Include more citations from latest research paper.

5. Write a major weak point of the research in conclusion.

Experimental design

In experimental design include the processing time to Placement.

Validity of the findings

Good research work. Discuss detail about How many typology grabbed from Internet Topology Zoo?

Additional comments

Correct the position of Equation number and improve the English.

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.