X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/blobdiff_plain/2b6c12d5492c59a9d65c26a7aa6c1da2d0ddfb4e..96d9b61965449470ef69145928021ced6bdc607d:/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex

diff --git a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
index 137f819..c695a98 100644
--- a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
+++ b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ by Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon and Raph\"ael Couturier
 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.
+Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n\textsuperscript{o}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
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n°1  after a first revision
 
 
 
-\noindent  {\bf  3.}  The  communication and  information  sharing  required  to
+\noindent  {\textbf{3. \textsc{Reviewer's comment:} } } The  communication and  information  sharing  required  to
 cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\
 
 \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  The   communication  and  information
@@ -65,9 +65,9 @@ cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\
 
 \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:}  Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet into the write up at the end of page 8}}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet at the end of section~3.}}\\
 
-\noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
+\noindent {\textbf{7. \textsc{Reviewer's comment:}}}  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
@@ -86,13 +86,13 @@ about the way you formulated the problem. The mathematical optimization model is
 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.}}
+consumed per sensor.}}\\
 
-\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  In fact, we included a new performance metric that linked to the energy, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR). We added new section in the result part related to this performance metric that shows our PeCO protocol provides better energy saving compared with other approaches.}}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  In fact, we defined in section 5.1 a new performance metric linked to the energy, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR). We added a new section (5.2.3) in the result part related to this performance metric which shows that our PeCO protocol provides better energy saving compared with other approaches.}}\\
 
 
 
-\noindent {\bf 8.}  Since this paper  is attacking the coverage problem, I would
+\noindent {8. \textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's comment:}}} 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
@@ -112,10 +112,9 @@ sentence though, "DiLCO is better for coverage ratios near $100\%$, but in that
 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. }}
+100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." stronger. }}\\
 
-\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Thank you so much to your suggestion for adjusting the sentence in the end of Section 5.2.5. (previously Section 5.2.4.), It is done. 
-For the applications, we added some applications examples in the end of the sentence "Indeed there are applications that do not require a 100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." as well as we changed the figure 10 (previously figure 9) by adding DilCO/70 and PecO/70 instead of DilCO/50 and PeCO/50 }}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Thank you so much for your suggestion, we modified the sentence at the end of Section 5.2.5. (previously Section 5.2.4.). As recommended, we added some applications examples. We also changed the figure 10 (previously figure 9) by replacing DilCO/50 and PecO/50 by DilCO/70 and PeCO/70.}}\\