--- /dev/null
+\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,
+
+First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your kind help to improve
+our article named: ``Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime
+in Wireless Sensor Networks''. We highly appreciate the detailed valuable
+comments of the reviewers on our article. The suggestions are quite helpful for
+us and we incorporate them in the revised article. We are happy to submit to you
+a revised version that considers most of your remarks and suggestions to improve
+the quality of our article.
+
+As below, we would like to clarify some of the points raised by the reviewers
+and we hope the reviewers and the editors will be satisfied by our responses to
+the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
+
+%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}
+
+This paper proposes a scheduling technique for WSN to maximize coverage and
+network lifetime. The novelty of this paper is the integration of an existing
+perimeter coverage measure with an existing integer linear programming
+model. Here are few 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.}}\\
+
+
+\noindent {\bf 6.} The authors have performed a thorough review of existing
+coverage methodologies. However, the clarity in the literature review is a
+little off. Some of the descriptions of the method s used are very vague and do
+not bring out their key contributions. Some references are not consistent and I
+suggest using the journals template to adjust them for overall consistency.\\
+
+\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:} I do like the way you have presented the different literature related to each aspect of
+the problem. I think I was just concerned that the sentences presenting each work are not very
+clear. After reading through them however, everything is clear. I like the addition of the last
+paragraph and believe it is definitely needed since you are directly comparing these
+methodologies.}}
+
+
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} References have been carefully checked
+ and seem to be consistent with the journal template. In Section~2, ``Related
+ literature'', we refer to papers dealing with coverage and lifetime in
+ WSN. Each paragraph of this section discusses the literature related to a
+ particular aspect of the problem : 1. types of coverage, 2. types of scheme,
+ 3. centralized versus distributed protocols, 4. optimization method. At the
+ end of each paragraph we position our approach. We have also added a last
+ paragraph about our previous work on DiLCO protocol to explain the
+ difference with PeCO. }}\\
+
+\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{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{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.}}\\
+
+\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. }}
+
+
+
+
+
+We are very grateful to the reviewers who, by their recommendations, allowed us
+to improve the quality of our article.
+
+\begin{flushright}
+Best regards\\
+The authors
+\end{flushright}
+
+
+
+\end{document}
