A Cross-Layer Approach MAC/NET with Updated-GA (MNUG-CLA)-Based Routing Protocol for VANET Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, below I am passing you my comments and suggestions:
1/ The problem must be improved in the Abstract. What are the current problems in the literature today?
2/ Also, improve the contribution of the research in the Abstract.
3/ Looking at your title, it seems so much confusing and long. It is important to improve it.
4/ What is the idea of Section 2? Are you proposing a survey, or do you have a proposal, new approach? I imagine that Section 2 is Related Work, right? Please, provide us a comparison table, so we can see the gaps i the literature in a better way.
5/ In Section 4, present a big picture figure about your solution, with input, processing and output. Also, present an architecture, detailing what is legacy and what is from you.
6/ Please, explain better the size, the selection of the sizes in Table 1.
7/ For every Algorithm, always provide was the input and putput of the algorithm.
8/ What is the scalability of your solution?
9/ And how about fault tolerance?
10/ What are the main limitations of the work?
11/ It is not clear dor me the statistical treatment of the data. How many times did you run, if we have normal distributions, standard deviations, mean, max, min, ...
12/ In the conclusion section, present the contributions for the society, what a end-citizen can gain with your research?
13/ References: how about references from 2021 and 2022?
Author Response
Subject: Our responses to review comments on the manuscript entitled “A Cross Layer Approach- MAC/NET with Updated-GA (MNUG-CLA) based Routing Protocol for VANET Network” (Manuscript ID : wevj-1666284)
The authors appreciate the reviewers’ and the editor’s comments on the manuscript, which have helped improve our manuscript quality. The following is a detailed report of how each comment is addressed and incorporated into the revised paper (see blue-colored texts). We have also indicated the locations where major changes have been made in the revised paper (yellow highlight) based on the reviewers’ comments.
Responses to Reviewer 1’s Comments
COMMENT 1: The problem must be improved in the Abstract. What are the current problems in the literature today?
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have revised the Abstract by improved the problem and mention to current problems. Please check the yellow highlight in page number one line 12-14.
COMMENT 2: Also, improve the contribution of the research in the Abstract.
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Abstract and add the contribution in the end of abstract. Please check the yellow highlight in page number one line 25-27.
COMMENT 3: Looking at your title, it seems so much confusing and long. It is important to improve it.
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. The title revised and became as “A Cross Layer Approach- MAC/NET with Updated-GA (MNUG-CLA) based Routing Protocol for VANET Network”.
COMMENT 4: What is the idea of Section 2? Are you proposing a survey, or do you have a proposal, new approach? I imagine that Section 2 is Related Work, right? Please, provide us a comparison table, so we can see the gaps i the literature in a better way.
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. Section 2 revised according to above questions. Please check the yellow highlight in the section 2.
- What is the idea of Section 2?
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. The idea of section 2 is that we discussed about the earlier works in the same area. And the drawbacks are analyzed. According to that we developed our novel concept.
- Are you proposing a survey, or do you have a proposal, new approach?
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. The study is new approach; our work mainly concentrates to improve the efficiency of the VANETs. The idea is mentioned in the page number 5 (contribution)
- I imagine that Section 2 is Related Work, right? Please, provide us a comparison table, so we can see the gaps i the literature in a better way.
Authors’ Response: thank you for your comment. The section 2 is Comprehensive Survey (the related work is apart from section 2). We revise section 2 by provide a comparison table, to make the gaps clear in the literature. Please check table (1) in the page number (4)
COMMENT 5: In Section 4, present a big picture figure about your solution, with input, processing and output. Also, present an architecture, detailing what is legacy and what is from you.
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. We add architecture and details in section 4. Please check Figure 2 and the details in subsections 4.
COMMENT 6: Please, explain better the size, the selection of the sizes in Table 1.
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. The answer is “The message format and packet size of neighbor discovery process with its packet size is described in the Table 1”. Please check the yellow highlight in the page number 7, line number 300-301.
COMMENT 7: For every Algorithm, always provide was the input and putput of the algorithm.
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. We revised the algorithm by add the input and output of the algorithm. Please check the yellow highlight in page number 8, line 327 to 329.
COMMENT 8: What is the scalability of your solution?
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. The major parameters we calculated are energy efficiency, consumption and successive packet transmission. This performance provides better results which leads the scalability of the network also. But we don’t have separate graph for scalability.
COMMENT 9: And how about fault tolerance?
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. The major parameters we calculated are energy efficiency, consumption and successive packet transmission. But we don’t have separate graph for scalability.
COMMENT 10: What are the main limitations of the work?
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. The main limitations of the work are given in the conclusion section. Write the main limitations then mention to that in the article by yellow highlight). Please check the yellow highlight in the conclusion section.
COMMENT 11: It is not clear dor me the statistical treatment of the data. How many times did you run, if we have normal distributions, standard deviations, mean, max, min, ...
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. In our research we used 5 simulation scenarios nodes with 20,40,60,80,100. Please check the yellow highlight in page number (11 -12) line 460-467.
COMMENT 12: In the conclusion section, present the contributions for the society, what a end-citizen can gain with your research?
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. The correction has been made in conclusion section. Please check the yellow highlight in page number (13), line (508 - 512) and (519 – 5222).
COMMENT 13: References: how about references from 2021 and 2022?
Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. Many references are added in the mentioned years. Please check the references section, reference number [22] to [27].
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors proposed a updated Genetic Algorithm Cross Layer Approach for improved routing protocol for VANET. Some suggestions are presented as follows.
- The author are suggested to revise literature review because there are so many related work about routing protocols for VANET. Meanwhile, the motivation of this paper should be carefully addressed.
- In Section 2.1, the authors discussed "Cross-layer Routing Parameters ". Please identify all parameters needed in the proposed scheme can be obtained in practice or the authors are suggested to explain more in detail.
- The computational complexity of the proposed routing protocol with GA should be carefully discussed.
- The simulation results are suggested to extended with different network topologies.
Author Response
Subject: Our responses to review comments on the manuscript entitled “A Cross Layer Approach- MAC/NET with Updated-GA (MNUG-CLA) based Routing Protocol for VANET Network” (Manuscript ID : wevj-1666284)
The authors appreciate the reviewers’ and the editor’s comments on the manuscript, which have helped improve our manuscript quality. The following is a detailed report of how each comment is addressed and incorporated into the revised paper (see blue-colored texts). We have also indicated the locations where major changes have been made in the revised paper (yellow highlight) based on the reviewers’ comments.
Responses to Reviewer 3’s Comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, the authors proposed a updated Genetic Algorithm Cross Layer Approach for improved routing protocol for VANET. Some suggestions are presented as follows.
- The author are suggested to revise literature review because there are so many related work about routing protocols for VANET. Meanwhile, the motivation of this paper should be carefully addressed.
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. As the reviewer suggested, we have revised section 2 “Literature review” by reviewing and citing existing work and highlighting qualitative / quantitative comparison against all the studies. According to the reviewer suggestion the motivation carefully addressed please check section 3.2. Motivation and Contribution of the paper, page number (5), line (246-254).
- In Section 2.1, the authors discussed "Cross-layer Routing Parameters ". Please identify all parameters needed in the proposed scheme can be obtained in practice or the authors are suggested to explain more in detail.
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. Please check section 2.1. The major parameters needed for the concept and the parameters missing in the earlier works are detailed.
- The computational complexity of the proposed routing protocol with GA should be carefully discussed.
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. The computational complexity is reduced using the fitness calculation in updated GA, Please check section 4.3 - page number (10 and 11).
- The simulation results are suggested to extended with different network topologies.
Authors’ Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the comment. The correction has been done, Please check section 5 page number (11).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I have read the document in detail, in addition to the answers for my previous issues. In special, the authors have improved the motivation, the gaps in the literature and how they fill up this part. Also, the model was improved to highlight the architecture and the Algorithms. In Table 1, for the last version, present the references in the first column. In Figure 3, in the x-axis, do we have the time? Also, present the x-axis in Figures 6 and 7. At this moment, I am happy with the content of the Conclusion and References.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have already addressed all comments raised by reviewers. I suggest to accept this paper.
