All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments. Your paper seems improved and acceptable for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel Katz, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear authors,
Thank you for your submission. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. Although two reviewers are satisfied with the revised article, your article has not been recommended for publication in its current form by Reviewer 1. However, we would encourage you to address the minor concerns and criticisms raised by reviewer 1 and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
The paper requires proof reading. It still contains many typos.
Many equations are presented without explanations which make it hard to follow. Also, the algorithms requires explanations.
no comments
No Comments
No comments
No comments
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised. The manuscript meets the necessary standards and should be accepted for publication.
My comments have been addressed. It is acceptable in the present form.
My comments have been addressed. It is acceptable in the present form.
My comments have been addressed. It is acceptable in the present form.
The article proposes a method to maintain robust performance in cloud computing systems by addressing performance degradation caused by unpredictable perturbations. It sets minimum acceptable profit and maximum waiting time as benchmarks for acceptable performance. A heuristic optimization algorithm is introduced to configure server size and speed within these benchmarks, ensuring system robustness. Experimental results demonstrate the algorithm's high accuracy, with minimal error compared to advanced benchmarks. The article meets the requirements of the journal and can be published in its current state.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your article. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. It is not recommended that your article be published in its current format. However, we strongly recommend that you address the issues raised by the reviewers, especially those related to readability, experimental design and validity, and resubmit your paper after making the necessary changes.
Best wishes,
This paper addresses the following three questions:
1. How to model the cloud environment with perturbations?
2. How to conduct robustness metrics on the model?
3. How to determine the optimal configuration to ensure robustness?
While the paper appears to be well-researched and includes notable contributions, it is challenging to follow. The detailed technical aspects can obscure the main problem statement and the primary contribution of the paper.
The paper's abstract fails to adequately describe the methodology of the proposed techniques, including how they improve upon existing methods to yield better results. Additionally, the abstract lacks examples of results. Furthermore, the abstract does not explain what ESOA and WOA methods are or why they were selected in particular.
In terms of system modeling, it is not clear whether the model presented is the authors' contribution or taken from existing literature. At certain points, the authors reference that it has been introduced in other publications, such as the waiting time and cost modeling. If these models are novel contributions from the authors, further explanation on the reasoning behind the equations and the authors' specific contributions should be provided.
In the problem description section, it is mentioned that, to the best of the authors' knowledge, perturbation factors have not been previously discussed in the modeling and solving process of the problem presented in the paper. The paper intends to describe the impacts of specific perturbation factors on the profit of cloud service providers and the waiting time of customers. It considers server size and speed as key factors. However, it is unclear why these two factors were chosen specifically, and what is meant by server size. The paper then sets values for some parameters, such as "a" and lambda, without explaining the reasons for choosing these values, which could affect the analysis. Additionally, in this section, particularly in Figure 2a, the caption may be incorrect as it indicates waiting time rather than profit.
In the performance analysis section, the criteria used for evaluation and comparison are not clearly stated. Furthermore, the goal of the optimization algorithms is not clearly defined.
- The paper studies the impact of perturbations in cloud systems.
- The results align with the goal. However, the research gaps and novelty of the paper can be stated more clearly in the introduction section.
- The grammar should be rechecked thoroughly (along with the abstract).
- A little more background on the M/M/m multi-server model will be good for the new readers.
- Inconsistency in the citations should be addressed (doubly written).
- Fonts and labels in the figures can be enlarged for clarity.
- A small text on possible future work can be stated in the manuscript.
Although the experiments and algorithms satisfy the original aim, I recommend adding some more justification for the parameters used in the experiments. A comparison table of prior similar results/methods can also be added (like advantages/goals achieved,etc).
The results are well-stated and the derivation is reliable. The outcome is significant and reproducible.
1- Clarity and Unambiguity: certain sentences are excessively intricate and could be deconstructed to enhance comprehension.
- Proposed Enhancement: Streamline intricate sentences and guarantee uniformity in terminology.
2- Professional English: the text contains numerous grammatical errors, clumsy wording, and non-conventional expressions. For instance, the phrase "the cost consumption always become higher correspondingly" should be revised to "the cost consumption always becomes correspondingly higher."
- Proposed Enhancement: Please thoroughly examine and modify the text to guarantee grammatical precision and coherent progression. Employ professional and technical terminology suitable for an academic paper.
3- Technical Correctness: some technical descriptions lack precision, for example, when stating that the "number and speed of servers should be adequately configured in a feasible region" without providing a clear definition of what is meant by a feasible region.
- Suggested Enhancement: Offer comprehensive and exact technical explanations. Provide precise definitions for terms and ensure that all concepts are thoroughly elucidated.
4- Expression and Courtesy: the overall tone of the article is generally suitable, although it could be enhanced to be more captivating and succinct. Ensure that the expression maintains a formal and courteous tone.
- Proposed Enhancement: Revise the language and ensure brevity while upholding a formal scholarly manner.
5- Inconsistent Citation Format: The citation format is inconsistent. For instance, "Li et al. (2012)" and "Jayaprakash et al. (2021)" are referenced differently than other sources. Consistency is key in scholarly writing.
Suggestion: Use a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, IEEE) throughout the paper.
6- Lack of Citation for Some Statements: Certain general statements lack proper citations. The statement "Cloud services are widely used by many organizations and individual users due to the presence of various advantages such as high efficiency, reliability, and low cost" necessitates substantiation with a citation.
- Suggestion: It is advisable to provide suitable references for all assertions in order to enhance the paper's credibility.
7- Over-Reliance on Older Sources: While the paper references some recent works (e.g., Jayaprakash et al., 2021), it also heavily relies on older references (e.g., Li et al., 2012).
- Suggestion: Incorporate more recent studies to demonstrate the paper's relevance to current research trends.
8- Specific Studies Cited Without Clear Context: Some studies are mentioned without clear context or explanation of their relevance. For instance, the work by Hui et al. (2019) and Gong et al. (2019) are listed without sufficient detail on how they relate to the current study.
- Suggestion: Provide a brief explanation of how each cited study contributes to or contrasts with the current research.
9- Insufficient Background on Perturbations: Although the paper acknowledges the existence of perturbations in cloud environments, it fails to provide a comprehensive explanation for the significance and prevalence of these specific perturbations, such as server breakdowns and bandwidth sharing.
- Suggestion: Elaborate on the significance of these disturbances and their influence on the performance of cloud services, offering additional context to support the rationale for conducting the study.
10- Unclear Connection Between previous Work and Current Study: The correlation between the referenced literature and the present research goals is occasionally ambiguous.
- Suggestion: Elaborate on the ways in which previous research has established the foundation for the present study and identify the specific areas of the literature that this paper intends to address.
11- Insufficient Detail on Heuristic Algorithms: Although the introduction briefly mentions the use of heuristic algorithms, it lacks adequate explanation regarding the rationale behind selecting these particular algorithms and their comparative advantages over others in the field.
- Suggestion: Present a concise summary of the heuristic algorithms employed, their common applications, and their appropriateness for this research.
12- Misalignment with PeerJ-Research Manuscript Template:
- In the PeerJ format, this content (THE MODELS) should be integrated into the "Materials & Methods" section. Consider renaming this section to fit within the broader "Materials & Methods" framework.
- This could be merged "PROBLEM DESCRIPTION" with the "Materials & Methods" section under a subsection such as "Problem Formulation" or "Problem Statement".
- "OPTIMAL ROBUST CONFIGURATION" should be included in the "Materials & Methods" section, specifically focusing on the methodology for achieving the robust configuration.
13- Missing Sections in PeerJ Format:
a- Materials & Methods:
Observation: The current structure lacks a clear "Materials & Methods" section.
Suggestion: Consolidate "THE MODELS," "PROBLEM DESCRIPTION," and "OPTIMAL ROBUST CONFIGURATION" into a comprehensive "Materials & Methods" section. This should describe the experimental setup, data sources, models, and methodologies in detail.
b- Results:
Observation: There is no distinct "RESULTS" section.
Suggestion: Create a new "Results" section to present the findings of the study, including any data analysis, comparisons, and performance evaluations of the proposed configuration scheme.
c- Discussion:
Observation: The current structure does not include a separate "DISCUSSION" section.
Suggestion: Add a "Discussion" section to interpret the results, compare them with related work, discuss implications, and highlight the novelty and contributions of the study. This is crucial for contextualizing the findings within the broader field.
d- Acknowledgements:
Observation: The structure lacks an "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS" section.
Suggestion: Include an "Acknowledgements" section to thank individuals and organizations that supported the research.
14- Self-Containment and Relevance to Hypotheses:
a- Comprehensive Results:
Observation: The article does not have a distinct "Results" section, making it difficult to determine if all relevant results are presented.
Suggestion: Introduce a "Results" section where all findings related to the hypotheses are clearly presented. Ensure this section includes data, analyses, and interpretations directly tied to the hypotheses.
b- Linking Results to Hypotheses:
Observation: There is a lack of explicit linkage between the results presented and the initial hypotheses or research questions.
Suggestion: In the discussion section (or a newly added one), explicitly link the results back to the hypotheses. Discuss how the findings support or refute the hypotheses, and elaborate on the implications.
c- Avoiding Fragmentation:
Observation: The article seems to subdivide the study into several sections (e.g., "The Models," "Problem Description," "Optimal Robust Configuration") without a clear narrative tying them together.
Suggestion: Ensure the study is presented as a cohesive unit. Each section should build on the previous ones, clearly leading to the results and discussion.
d- Detailed Methodology:
Observation: The methodology, particularly how the models and configurations were tested and validated, is scattered across sections.
Suggestion: Consolidate the methodology in a comprehensive "Materials & Methods" section. This should include detailed descriptions of the models, experimental setup, and procedures used to test the hypotheses.
e- Interpretation of Perturbations:
Observation: The discussion of perturbations and their impact is not consistently tied to the main objectives throughout the article.
Suggestion: Ensure that the impact of perturbations on cloud configurations is consistently addressed in relation to the hypotheses. Each perturbation discussed should have a clear connection to the study’s objectives and results.
f- Conclusion Relevance:
Observation: The conclusion section summarizes the study but may lack depth in tying results back to the initial hypotheses.
Suggestion: Strengthen the conclusion by explicitly discussing how the findings relate to the hypotheses. Summarize the key results and their implications for the research questions posed.
15- Formal Results and Areas for Improvement:
a- Detailed Proofs:
- Observation: The article alludes to various methodologies and algorithms without furnishing comprehensive justifications or derivations of their soundness and efficacy.
- Suggestion: Provide comprehensive justifications or deductions for all significant theorems and propositions. When presenting a heuristic algorithm, it is important to include a proof or formal argument that showcases its correctness, efficiency, and ability to achieve optimal or nearly optimal solutions.
b- Terms and Concepts:
Explicitly define all technical terms and concepts the first time they are mentioned. Employ unambiguous and precise terminology to eliminate any potential for confusion.
c- In-depth Explanations: Present comprehensive demonstrations for all theorems and propositions. If the proof is extensive, it is advisable to include it in an appendix. However, it is important to provide a summary or outline of the proof in the main text.
1- Clearly Define the Research Question:
- Observation: The research question is implied but not explicitly stated.
- Suggestion: Clearly articulate the research question at the beginning of the introduction section. This will provide readers with a clear understanding of the study's focus.
2- State the Relevance and Meaningfulness of the Research Question:
- Observation: The significance of the research question is analyzed, but it could be more closely associated with specific challenges faced by industries or prevailing technological trends.
- Suggestion: Emphasize the pragmatic importance of the research question, linking it to tangible difficulties encountered by cloud service providers in the real world.
3- Identify and Describe the Knowledge Gap:
- Observation: The article alludes to prior research but does not explicitly pinpoint the particular void in knowledge that it aims to fill.
- Suggestion: Thoroughly pinpoint the deficiency in the current body of knowledge and elucidate how this research endeavor intends to address and rectify that deficiency.
4- Explicitly State How the Study Contributes to Filling the Knowledge Gap:
- Observation: The article implies contributions but does not clearly state them in relation to the identified knowledge gap.
- Suggestion: Clearly outline the study's contributions in addressing the identified knowledge gap.
- Example: "This study contributes to the field by: (1) defining boundedness constraints for profit and average waiting time, (2) proposing an optimal robust configuration scheme, and (3) validating the scheme through heuristic algorithms and experimental comparisons.
5- Ensure Coherence in Linking the Research Question to the Knowledge Gap:
- Observation: The relationship between the research question and the knowledge gap is not explicitly expressed.
- Suggestion: Construct a logical and cohesive storyline that explicitly connects the research inquiry to the recognized deficiency in knowledge, and elucidates how investigating the question will bridge the gap.
6- Ensure Comprehensive Methodological Details:
- Observation: Although the article covers models and algorithms, it does not provide in-depth methodological explanations.
- Suggestion: Present a thorough explanation of the methodology, outlining the precise procedures employed to formulate and evaluate the algorithms. This will aid in establishing the level of technical precision in the investigation.
- Example: The heuristic algorithms were implemented using a systematic approach that involved following a series of precise steps. Every individual step underwent rigorous testing utilizing specific tools or datasets, and the obtained results were thoroughly verified against benchmark criteria.
7- Include Validation and Verification Steps:
- Observation: The validation and verification processes lack detailed descriptions.
- Suggestion: Outline the procedures employed to validate and verify the models and algorithms, guaranteeing the dependability and replicability of the outcomes.
8- Provide Detailed Experimental Setup:
- Observation: The experimental setup and conditions in which the experiments were conducted lack comprehensive details.
- Suggestion: Provide comprehensive explanations of the experimental configuration, encompassing the specific hardware and software utilized, datasets employed, and parameters employed in the simulations.
9- Demonstrate Robustness and Reliability:
- Observation: The results imply robustness and reliability, but they are not explicitly demonstrated.
- Suggestion: Provide comprehensive findings that demonstrate the strength and dependability of the suggested approach. Provide a thorough analysis of the existing methods by making comparisons and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.
10- Include Statistical Analysis:
- Observation: The findings lack comprehensive statistical analysis to substantiate them.
- Suggestion: Incorporate statistical analyses to provide evidence for the results, showcasing the importance and dependability of the findings.
- Example: Example: "Statistical analyses were performed using [specific statistical methods]. The results showed a significant improvement in [specific metrics], with a p-value of [specific value], indicating strong evidence against the null hypothesis."
11- Specific Suggestions for methodology Improvement:
a- Provide Detailed Algorithm Descriptions:
- Observation: The article discusses the utilization of heuristic algorithms and neighborhood search methods, but it does not provide comprehensive explanations.
- Suggestion: Provide detailed explanations of the algorithms employed, including step-by-step instructions and, if needed, visual representations such as flowcharts.
b- Include Comprehensive Experimental Setup:
- Observation: The experimental setup is not fully detailed.
Suggestion: Provide a comprehensive description of the hardware, software, datasets, and parameters used in the experiments.
c- Illustrative Examples and Case Studies:
- Observation: The article is deficient in providing illustrative examples or case studies that effectively demonstrate the practical implementation of the methods.
Please present one or more concrete examples or case studies that demonstrate the practical implementation of the methods in real-life situations.
Areas Where the Article Fails to Meet Standards:
1- The article lacks a clear explanation of the significance and originality of its contributions. In order to adhere to publication standards, the paper should emphasize the ways in which the proposed scheme contributes to the advancement of cloud computing resource management, specifically in its ability to handle perturbations.
- Proposed Enhancement: Articulate the distinctive elements of the proposed resilient resource allocation strategy and its potential influence on enhancing the profitability of cloud service providers and the satisfaction of customers.
2- The paper does not include a thorough analysis of the reasons for replication and the advantages it brings to the existing body of literature. Replication is essential for verifying findings and guaranteeing dependability.
- Proposed Enhancement: Incorporate a segment that elucidates the justification for duplicating the suggested scheme and its anticipated contributions to the wider body of knowledge on managing cloud computing resources.
3- Experimental Validation: Although the paper acknowledges the presence of experimental comparisons, it fails to provide comprehensive explanations of the experimental configuration, parameters, and metrics employed for validation.
- Proposed Enhancement: Please furnish an elaborate account of the experimental framework, encompassing the arrangement, variables, and criteria for evaluating performance. Analyze the outcomes in connection with the hypotheses or research inquiries presented.
4- Literature Review: The literature review section is thorough, but it could benefit from a more targeted approach in identifying the specific gaps that the current research intends to address.
- Proposed Enhancement: Refine the literature review to concentrate on the precise deficiencies that this study targets, highlighting how it advances upon and deviates from prior research.
5- All underlying data are provided; They are robust, statistically sound, and controllable. However, this data set is not well described within the paper, so a section (Data Description) describing the data must be allocated within the (Materials & Methods) section.
6- The conclusion section fails to explicitly address the three key research questions that were outlined in the introduction.
Proposed Enhancement: It is necessary to clearly state in the conclusion how the research has specifically tackled each of these three questions.
7- The conclusions should be closely correlated with the findings derived from the study. The paper asserts the superiority of the proposed algorithm over ESOA and WOA, but it lacks specific evidence or metrics from the experiments to substantiate this claim in the conclusion section.
- Proposed Enhancement: Incorporate precise outcomes or measurements that showcase the performance enhancements of the proposed algorithm in comparison to ESOA and WOA.
8- The conclusion should refrain from suggesting causal relationships unless they are substantiated by meticulously conducted experiments. The current conclusion suggests that the heuristic optimization algorithm leads to optimal configurations without addressing potential limitations or the specific conditions in which this is valid.
- Proposed Enhancement: It should be noted that although the heuristic optimization algorithm exhibits promising outcomes, its efficacy may be contingent upon the particular circumstances or assumptions employed in the study.
9-The conclusion should be confined to the boundaries of the findings presented in the paper. Refrain from making sweeping assertions that lack direct support from the experimental data.
- Proposed Enhancement: Direct the conclusion towards the precise discoveries of the investigation, refraining from excessively general assertions.
1- The authors should not use acronym without explanation. All acronyms must be defined before use. e.g. MEC, VM, etc…
2- The explanation about the algorithms is not enough. Furthermore, the meaning of variables/functions is not clear. Readers will be confused.
3- It is possible to draw a parallel with other studies that utilize different data sets, in a specific table. Nevertheless, it is evident that the research may vary in terms of the study's duration, the employed methodology, and the metrics utilized for evaluation. Nevertheless, the proposed model demonstrates its superiority.” The authors’ interpretation is not supported by any demonstrations. This is overemphasis. The authors should justify the authors’ interpretation by demonstrating specific data.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.