\documentclass[14]{article}

\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{pifont}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
%\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

\renewcommand{\labelenumii}{\labelenumi\arabic{enumii}}
%\titleformat*{\section}{\Large\bfseries}

%\title{Response to the reviewers of \bf "Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks"}
%\author{Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkela, Michel Salomon and Raphael Couturier}

\begin{document}

\begin{flushright}
\today
\end{flushright}%

\vspace{-0.5cm}\hspace{-2cm}FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR 6174 CNRS

\hspace{-2cm}University Bourgogne Franche-Comt\'e

\hspace{-2cm}IUT Belfort-Montb\'eliard, BP 527, 90016 Belfort Cedex, France.

\bigskip

\begin{center}
Detailed changes and addressed issues in the revision of the article

``Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization \\
to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks''\\

by Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon and Raph\"ael Couturier

\medskip

\end{center}
Dear Editor and Reviewers,


Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n°1  after a first revision have been carefully considered. Please find below our answers highlighted in green. We did our best to satisfy your requests.

%Journal: Engineering Optimization
%Reviewer's Comment to the Author Manuscript id GENO-2015-0094
%Title: \bf "Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks"
%Authors: Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkela, Michel Salomon and Raphael Couturier

\section*{Response to Reviewer No. 1 Comments}






\noindent  {\bf  3.}  The  communication and  information  sharing  required  to
cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\

\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  The   communication  and  information
    sharing required to  cooperate and make these decisions is  discussed at the
    end of page 8.  Position coordinates,  remaining energy, sensor node ID, and
    number of one-hop neighbors are exchanged.}}\\

\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:} I see at the end of page 8 the description of the INFO packet. However, you are not including any description of the position coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID, etc. in the write up. I suggest adding this into the write up to make the communication clear.}}\\

\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  blbla}}\\

\noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
and tested  against 2 existing algorithms  and a previously developed  method by
the authors.   The simulation results  are thorough  and show that  the proposed
method improves the  coverage and network lifetime compared with  the 3 existing
methods. The results are similar to previous work done by their team.\\

\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Although  the study conducted  in this
    paper reuses the  same protocol presented in our previous  work, we focus in
    this  paper on  the mathematical  optimization model  developed to  schedule
    nodes  activities.   We deliberately  chose  to  keep the  same  performance
    indicators to  compare the results  obtained with this new  formulation with
    other existing algorithms.}}\\

\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}  
I agree that you should show the same performance indicators and that this paper is
about the way you formulated the problem. The mathematical optimization model is the main
contribution but it’s less convincing since the results are slightly better if not the same for the two
methodologies you have developed. Could you include some other measure that shows that the
PeCO is better? Maybe include computation time or something that is as convincing as the energy
consumed per sensor.}}

\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  blbla}}\\



\noindent {\bf 8.}  Since this paper  is attacking the coverage problem, I would
like  to  see more  information  on  the amount  of  coverage  the algorithm  is
achieving. It seems that  there is a tradeoff in this  algorithm that allows the
network to increase  its lifetime but does not improve  the coverage ratio. This
may be an  issue if this approach  is used in an application  that requires high
coverage ratio. \\

\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Your  remark is very interesting.  Indeed,
    Figures 8(a) and (b) highlight this  result. The PeCO protocol allows to achieve
    a coverage  ratio greater than $50\%$  for far more periods  than the others
    three  methods, but  for applications  requiring  a high  level of  coverage
    (greater than  $95\%$), the DiLCO method is  more efficient. It is  explained at
    the end of Section 5.2.4.}}\\

\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}   
I’m glad you added the explanation. I am confused with your conclusion in the last
sentence though, “DiLCO is better for coverage ratios near $100\%$, but in that case PeCO is not
ineffective for the smallest network sizes”. I suggest adjusting it to something like this. “DiLCO
outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be $>90\%$, but PeCo extends the network
lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed. “ Also, can you add applications where
you would want to have a coverage ratio of $50\%$? This seems like a very small ratio and as you
increase it, DiLCO becomes the methodology that has the maximum network lifetime. If you don't
include application examples, your statement "Indeed there are applications that do not require a
100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." stronger. }}

\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  blbla}}\\





\begin{flushright}
Best regards\\
The authors
\end{flushright} 
 


\end{document}
