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 manuscript has been improved as per comments of the reviewers.
Good
Good
It can be acceptable.
It can be acceptable.
More explanation is required regarding security process from the point of view of SDN controller.
no comment
no comment
Please explain the security process in more detail from the perspective of FLAT and SDN controller.
Please review the sentences more about the overall logic of the paper.
The revision of the paper has been well addressed according to my comments. It can be acceptable.
The simulation details have been added and graphs have been well explained according to my concern.
Findings are validated.
The comments have been well addressed and the paper can be accepted.
Dear Authors,
Please revise and resubmit the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
- This paper proposes an analysis model as a paper that applies Fog Computing-based IoT to the sports field.
- It is necessary to organize the research part of the existing research into a separate chapter. In addition, it is necessary to add a comparative evaluation part of this study and the existing one.
- As a result of analysis through simulation, it is necessary to verify experimentally how the analysis is excellent in terms of efficiency and security with existing research results.
- In addition to the logical argument that the analysis of data collected by the sensor at the Fog layer provides low-latency by being feedback directly to the device layer, it is also necessary to add simulation results to support this.
- We need a detailed explanation of the analysis model, which is the main topic of this paper. For example, what AI algorithms are used to provide the results of the analysis to the players and speculators.
- It is necessary to organize the evaluation contents by comparing and analyzing the existing relevant research results.
- Further analysis of providing security will also need to be added by applying FLAT. In particular, analysis is required from the perspective of security parameters in the field of sports.
- And as a solution to define and solve security issues that need to be solved in the sports field, an explanation is needed from the integrated perspective of security provided by Blockchain-based SDN controller and FLAT.
The paper proposes "A Novel IoT-Based Health and Tactical Analysis Model with Fog Computing". The idea is novel, however, the paper has a lot of technical mistakes that needs to be revised. The paper needs an extensive proofreading and professional English should be used. The paper has no mathematical formulation that can verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. The author has used the SDN approach, however, there are no details of how the algorithm interacts with the controller. The results are not well drawn and written.
The experimental design needs more explanation. Which simulator is used for emulating the SDN.
The graphs and results are not professionally written and well explained. There is not flow and link between the algorithm and result section.
The author paper proposes "A Novel IoT-Based Health and Tactical Analysis Model with Fog Computing". The idea is novel, however, the paper has a lot of technical mistakes that needs to be revised.
1. The paper needs an extensive proofreading and professional English should be used.
2. The paper has no mathematical formulation that can verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. 3. The author has used the SDN approach, however, there are no details of how the algorithm interacts with the controller.
4.The results are not well drawn and written.
5. The algorithm is not well defined, how will be the delay reduced using Fog computing approach.
6. What is role of sdn controller with Fog computing, how will fog computing receive the optimal paths.
7. Is fog computing intelligent or the SDN controller.
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.