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.
Please follow the next steps from the production team.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
I thank the researchers for using the given comments and for adding further additions that enhanced the manuscript.
After reviewing the manuscript, I found that they had modified the research for the better.
ok
ok
ok
Upon reviewing feedback from qualified reviewers, it is evident that your manuscript necessitates significant revisions. Make major changes based on the comments provided. Ensure to address these revisions thoroughly before resubmitting your manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Here are some areas where the article could be improved:
Clarity and Organization: The methodology and mathematical analysis section is hard to follow due to the dense text and lack of clear organization. It would be helpful to break down the process into sub-sections or use bullet points to make the steps more distinct and easier to understand.
Language and Grammar: Several sentences could be rephrased for clarity. For instance, "Keeping the fact in mind that skew at the physical layer and application layer has to be the same because both clocks are derived by hardware clock within the same node" could be rewritten more clearly as "Since both the physical and application layer clocks are derived from the hardware clock within the same node, it's essential for their skew to be identical."
Conciseness: Some sentences are overly long and could be broken down into smaller, more digestible parts to enhance readability.
Incorporating these improvements will make the article more accessible and enhance its quality.
The article's experimental design has several areas where it can be improved:
Clear Experimental Objectives: The objectives of the experiment are not explicitly stated. It would be beneficial to clearly define the research questions or objectives that the experiment aims to address. For example, what specific aspects of physical layer and application layer synchronization are being investigated?
Methodology Description: The article lacks a detailed description of the methodology used in the experiment. It's important to provide step-by-step instructions and explain how the experiment was conducted, including the setup, equipment, and data collection procedures.
It is suggested that the article should provide a more comprehensive and well-structured description of the experimental process, along with clear explanations of the data presented.
It also notes the absence of clear objectives and detailed methodology. The lack of statistical analysis and data interpretation is emphasized, and there is a call for a more consistent and concise presentation. Additionally, the need to discuss the experiment's limitations is also highlighted.
Reviewers emphasize the importance of addressing these issues to enhance the validity of the article's findings and to make it more informative and rigorous.
The paper can be accepted after major modification/ revision.
Line (28) missing reference
Line 49 The authors use “IOT nodes” without a clear definition of it.
The font in Figure 1 is not clear.
Line 50 Please review “When these IOT nodes are time synchronized, they can tag the events with time for a better understanding of the bigger picture.”
Line 57: “To the best of the author’s knowledge”,
Enhance the resolution of Figures 2,3,4,5,6,7.
THE EXPERIMENTATION AND RESULTS part needs to be re-described, as, from my point of view, the way it was presented is incomprehensible and needs further clarification. I also believe that providing this part with a drawing may add more clarity about the experiment setup.
Line 52: “How can Time synchronization enhance predictive maintenance”
Line 58: “Every method uses several exchanges of timestamps…”, proof.
What is Equation 1?
Explain more variable (p) used in “METHODOLOGY AND MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS” and show the range of its values.
Define e(p) in equation 2
what is (n) in equation 3, and how is it calculated?
Lines (225 – 234) What are the justifications for the used values in the Physical layer configuration details?
In Figure 6 the computed skew belongs to which clock!
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.