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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 13th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 10th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 3rd, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 10th, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Mar 10, 2022 · Academic Editor


All reviewers' comments have been addressed. I recommend it for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jan 10, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The reviewers have identified some merits of the paper but they also raised some concerns. A thorough revision is needed before further consideration. I look forward to receiving your revised paper.

[# 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: #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

In the introduction section authors discuss about previous research works related to this topic along with the potential communication technologies for this application. The paper purposes implementation of LoRa for air quality monitoring of large buildings. in this section they should clearly mention what is the novelty and contribution of this paper. In chapter two authors discuss about the previous research work done related to this field. In chapter 3 authors discuss about the experimental setup of this project. In this chapter authors discuss about the experimental setup of the project the. Two communication architecture has been tested. In first architecture end node is directly connected to the master node and in second architecture a repeater node has been used to hop data to the master node. In the results section authors conclude that the mesh network performs better than the direct end-node to master communication on the basis of experimental data.

Experimental design

Two communication architecture has been used
• Direct communication between end-node to master node
• Mesh network-based architecture where an intermediate node has been used for data hopping in case
of weak signal strength.

Authors haven't mentioned what is the uniqueness of their experiment as compared to previous research in this area.

Validity of the findings

Authors have compared the performance of the single hop and two hop based data transmission based on Packet delivery rate for different scenarios. From the experimental results the authors concluded that mesh network-based system provides better
• Data from table 2-4 can be represented more simply in terms of a chart.
• Figures should be made clearer.
• Use same kind of chart to represent PDR in different scenario in figure 11. Either both histogram of
both lines.
• Novelty not assessed.

Additional comments

• My question is why use LoRa for this specific application? Why not use preexisting communication
infrastructure available in the building like WIFI or LAN?
• Authors should clearly mention what is the nobility and contribution of this paper.
• Authors are suggested to include analysis regarding data rate of the network, Frequency of the data
extraction from each node and how does the size of network effect the data extraction frequency.
• One of the main abilities of LoRa is the ability to transmit data on multiple spreading factor which allows
it to trade data rate and range of communication. So instead of using mesh configuration variable
spreading factors can be used for reliable communication.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

1.Some sentences in the text are not clear,for example "The repeater nodes were configured to receive the data and forward it to the end node while the end node was programmed to receive data from the repeater node instead of receiving it directly from the master node."
2.Literature references are sufficient.
3.Figure 1 is not necessary for illustration. Figure 4 is too simple to illustrate the algorithm flow.
4.The experimental results are convincing.
5.Please state the conclusion in more professional terms.

Experimental design

1.The content described in the article is within the objectives and scope of the magazine.
2.Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. However, the description of the method used is too simple and the description of the network structure is not clear.
3.For the technical description, please specify the function of the mobile phone.
4.The steps in the method description are reasonable and the detailed information is insufficient. For example, the flow chart is too simple.

Validity of the findings

1.The article has certain novelty.
2.The data provided are reliable and sufficient.
3.Please carefully summarize the innovation of the article and write the conclusion in academic words.

Additional comments

1.It is suggested to merge the contents of "2. RELATED WORKS" into "1. INTRODUCTION" because they are all literature analysis.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

- Your related works need more detail. I suggest that you consider the other works related to LoRa mesh networks and routing protocols for the wireless mesh networks.
- Figures 4, 5, 6 should be provided in high quality (for example with 600dpi)
- In Figures 11, 12 the comparison of PDRs should be described in 2 columns as the comparison in the Fig. 13.

Experimental design

- In the experiments, the authors added some repeater-nodes between master-nodes and end-node, which organizes multi-hop transmission between them. However, the author should consider the influence of the number of master-nodes and the number of repeater-nodes to PDR.

Validity of the findings

- The results have shown that using additional repeater-nodes increases the PDR and the network coverage in the duct air monitoring application.

Additional comments

- Amit Mullick et al have shown the significant of using a LoRa mesh network for monitoring application, in particularly in duct air monitoring. The authors have proposed a mesh network architecture based on LoRa technology. However, there are repeater-nodes used to relay packets from a master-node to an end-node, and the authors haven’t provided which routing protocols used in the LoRa mesh network.
- The authors should provide more detail about the proposed mesh architecture.

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.