--- /dev/null
+Sujet : Decision on your Manuscript #CLUS-94
+Date : 5 Feb 2010 15:47:58 -0500
+De : Cluster Computing <Charissa.Cometa@springer.com>
+Pour : Ahmed.Mostefaoui@pu-pm.univ-fcomte.fr
+Copie à : hariri@ece.arizona.edu, I.U.Awan@bradford.ac.uk
+
+
+
+Dear Dr. Ahmed Mostefaoui:
+
+We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript,
+"Distributed Data Fusion in Sensor Networks : An Asynchronous
+Iterative Approach". With regret, I must inform you that, based on
+the advice received, your manuscript cannot be accepted for
+publication in Cluster Computing.
+
+Attached, please find the reviewer comments for your perusal. I would
+like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for
+consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative
+place of publication.
+
+Sincerely yours,
+
+ Salim Hariri
+ Cluster Computing
+
+
+Comments for the Author:
+
+
+
+
+Reviewer #1: The paper addresses the issue of distributed data fusion
+in wireless sensor networks. This is based on a consensus algorithm
+that allows nodes to converge to some average of sensors measurements
+of event observed. The authors claim that it is robust to asynchronous
+measurements and adopt to dynamic topology changes.
+This work is basically an extension to the author's previous work
+[14], which they have not explicitly mentioned. This study like the
+others provides fusion algorithm, which merely provides average of
+measurements. Therefore, these are applicable to specific applications
+of wireless sensor networks in which event is detected in a little bit
+wider range by a number of collocated sensor nodes and change in
+phenomenon is relatively low. For example, light or temperature
+monitoring are the target applications for these studies. Hence, the
+cope is limited. I suggest the authors to incorporate some other
+fusion functions like deviation or extreme values to make the fusion
+algorithm more realistic. Moreover, convergence to average of initial
+states is not the right measure of event information rather it should
+be converged to recent measurement.
+There are some grammatical mistakes and writing needs to be improved.
+Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are given but it would be helpful to discuss
+the consequences of these assumptions on the fusion algorithm.
+There is no comparison with the existing study to see the performance
+gain of this work. The results should also be provided to show the
+time taken for convergence in addition to no. of iterations. This is
+important in case of asynchronous fusion algorithm due to
+unanticipated communication delay.
+
+
+
+
+Reviewer #2: The authors started with a good flow but in the middle
+and specially in the performance analysis they lost the command. There
+are a few spelling mistakes and reference are missing in the text. The
+authors also claimed that they have incorporated the dynamically
+changing topology, but no results have shown in this regards.The
+results have not analyzed and explaind properly. Results shown in fig
+4 and 5 are identical with only axis changed which are not under stood
+at all. Convergence time is take as the the simulation time which is
+not correct and need to develop an accurate model. The authors are
+advised to co-relate their mathematical conclusions with the
+simulation results accurately and explicitly.
+
+
+
