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.
Based on the input from the experts, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication. Congratulations! and thank you for your fine contribution.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
All my previous comments are now addressed in this version.
All my previous comments are now addressed in this version.
All my previous comments are now addressed in this version.
All my previous comments are now addressed in this version.
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
Dear authors
Thanks for your submission to our esteemed journal, your paper has been reviewed with care by the domain experts and you will see that they are suggesting major improvements to uplift the quality of your paper. I agree with them and suggest you revise the paper carefully in light of these suggestions.
You also need to carefully revise the language of the paper and elaborate the methodology in more detail.
**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.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
See additional comments.
See additional comments.
See additional comments.
Although the current paper contributes to its field, some severe issues must be fixed thoroughly. The detected issues are as follows:
We split issues into two groups: technical issues and language and presentation problems.
Technical issues are related to the model, data, and the proposed method.
1. Technical issues:
1.1. All equations should be cited in the text. The terms used in the equations need to be explained just below the equation. The word “formula” should be replaced by “Eq.(.). All mathematical expressions should be numbered. The expression “(Formula 5)” is used to present the equation, which is not a correct form. Please check all. Some mathematical expressions used in the text should be separated.
1.2 The proposed method should be better explained and presented.
1.3 Where is Algorithm 4 presented? And How is the data generated?
1.4. more references are needed.
1.5 Which software is used to run simulations?
1.6. Did the authors use all evaluation indicators? If not, why did they choose them presented in the article? Please discuss.
1.7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method? Please discuss it in the conclusion section as a separate paragraph.
2. Both language and presentational issues:
2.1. All abbreviations should be checked. Before giving abbreviations, a full group of words should be presented.
2.2. Proofreading is a must.
2.3. ” Key words” should be substituted by Keywords. The number of keywords should be reduced.
2.4. The article is composed of long paragraphs. All need to be checked and shortened.
2.5. there should be space between the text and figures and tables.
2.6. the titles of figures and tables should be checked.
2.7. the conclusion section needs a better presentation and to be shortened.
2.8. Abstract is longer than that available in the journals. It needs to be shortened.
2.9 the introduction section needs two more paragraphs that state 1. The motivation and contribution of the article, 2. The structure of the paper.
2.9. The references used in the text do not match the ones in the references section. Please check them.
We expect the authors to respond to each issue.
The article has problems. They are itemized as follows:
1. The presentation and the language of the article need a comprehensive revision. All tables and figures should be checked. The titles of figures and tables should be checked and fixed. All tables and figures should be cited just below or above them. All mathematical expressions should be checked. The abstract should be rewritten and reorganized. The research motivation, the contribution, the proposed method, and key findings should be included in the abstract. The conclusion section needs to be completely changed. The introduction needs a better presentation. Also, more up-to-date references should be added and discussed. What do SDC, TCP, and MPTCP stand for? The article has serious citation issues. Please check all.
2. Authors use E8 either experiment or statistics. Which one is correct? Remove all ambiguities related to the presentations of the proposed method and other related content. What does the proposed method look like? Is it a combination of A1 through A3? How are they merged?
3. Use more references for A5-A8
4. What are the limitations of the proposed method? Please discuss it
5. How did the authors reach a decision that the proposed method achieves better? Please discuss it.
6. Did the authors run any statistical tests to measure the performance of the proposed method? If not why? Please discuss it.
7. If there are fundamental differences between the proposed method and reference methods, how would a comparison be sound? Please discuss it.
8. Why did the authors call the data statistical data? Please discuss it.
9. This sentence is extracted from the article:” The proposed Algorithm A4 has significant advantages in various performance metrics, with only a slightly lower network transmission rate compared to Algorithm A5.” What does it mean? Please discuss it.
10. What kind of simplifications are provided by the proposed method? Please discuss it.
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.