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.
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revision. Two of the original reviewers did not respond to the invitation to review the revised paper. Another reviewer thinks that the paper is acceptable for publication. I also think that the paper is sufficiently improved and seems acceptable for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors have addressed all the comments successfully and paper may be accepted for article.
Good
results are validate at simulation environment
Authors have addressed all the comments successfully and paper may be accepted for article.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your article. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. It is not recommended that your article be published in its current format. However, we strongly recommend that you address the issues raised by the reviewers, especially those related to readability, experimental design and validity, and resubmit your paper after making the necessary changes. Before submitting the paper following should also be addressed:
1. What is your central research question? How does your subject relate to your research problem? What methods should you use to analyse your research problem? Why is your research important and why should someone reading the proposal care?
2. How the honey bee-inspired strategy is adapted to the focused problem is not clear. "Honey bee" only exists in the Abstract section of the paper.
3. Pros and cons of the methods should be clarified. What are the limitation(s) methodology(ies) adopted in this work? Please indicate practical advantages, and discuss research limitations.
4. Explanation of the equations should be checked. All variables should be written in italics as in the equations. Their definitions and boundaries should be defined. Necessary references should also be given.
5. Reviewer 1 has asked you to provide specific references. You are welcome to add them if you think they are relevant. However, you are not obliged to include these citations, and if you do not, it will not affect my decision.
Best wishes,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree 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 that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The authors objective is to deploy the application processing modules on Fog resources for optimal execution in terms of latency, bandwidth, and earliest completion time. The honey bee-inspired strategy has been proposed for allocation and utilization of the resource for application module processing. My comments are given below:
1. The authors should carefully proofread this paper and correct all the typos in the revision.
2. Authors need to add the motivation for the article in introduction section.
3. Authors need to rewrite the abstract to focus more contributions.
4. The need of fog computing is not described properly in introduction, authors discuss with the help of real time example.
5. Authors need to add state of art comparison table along with its advantages and disadvantages in section 2.
6. Problem formulation is cloud computing based, not integrated cloud fog. Author go through some reputed journals and improve the problem formulation.
7. Authors need to discuss proposed framework along with its components, how offloading and resource allocation decision has made.
8. Many researchers has applied GA and other metaheuristic algorithm, how your work different from others.
9. There are lots of techniques have been proposed by various authors in recent years, how your work is novel, could you justify.
10. Check the symbols and equations used in problem formulation.
11. The experimental results are not looking promising, authors discuss with more details.
12. Authors can add the limitations of proposed techniques.
13. Literature needs to be improved by incorporating some quality papers like
(i) AI-empowered Fog/Edge Resource Management for IoT Applications: A Comprehensive Review, Research Challenges and Future Perspectives
(ii) Deadline-aware Cost and Energy Efficient Offloading in Mobile Edge Computing
(iii) Adversarial ML-Based Secured Cloud Architecture for Consumer Internet of Things of Smart Healthcare
(iv) Autonomic Edge Cloud Assisted Framework for Heart Disease Prediction using RF-LRG Algorithm
**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.
mentioned in basic report
Please find the comments in basic reporting
As above
1.Authors own contribution is missing.
2. Authors have mentioned the healthcare application in tittle, but not mentioned how this proposed approach is helpful in smarthealthcare system.
3. lots of grammatical error.
4. Latest references is missing in work.
1. own menthodology is missing in the proposed approach.
2. Algorithm has not provided any new research or any innovation.
3. There is requirement of Background chapter, who efficiently explain the Honey Bee algorithm.
4. in tittle author have mentioned Honey Bee algorithm, but where its used not clear in manuscript.
1. written abstract and conclusion is weak.
2. used dataset is not mentioned.
1. overall written manuscript is not linked properly.
2. paper is rejected.
1. Abstract must define the context, the problem discussion, solution proposed, results, findings and implications of research.
2. A more detailed and refined comparison is required among the proposed approach and existing approaches.
Scalability issue is not addressed anywhere in the paper. How the proposed approach will work in different healthcare scenarios if it get employed in real life scenarios.
One more parameter of evaluation must be added that validated the appropriate resource allocation is done or not using the proposed approach.
Results must highlight the percentage of improvement the proposed approach made over existing ones.
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.