From 5dee29308b126ecec546ac1972486d224e56b5a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arnaud Giersch Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:46:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Added reviewers comments. --- chapitre-2009_comments.txt | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) create mode 100644 chapitre-2009_comments.txt diff --git a/chapitre-2009_comments.txt b/chapitre-2009_comments.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a2a3e30 --- /dev/null +++ b/chapitre-2009_comments.txt @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Sujet : Decision on your Manuscript #CLUS-94 +Date : 5 Feb 2010 15:47:58 -0500 +De : Cluster Computing +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. + + + -- 2.39.5