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.
Thanks for your interest in publishing your research in PeerJ Computer Science. It is my pleasure to let you know that your paper has been accepted for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I believe that the manuscript is now ready to be published in PeerJ
The authors have addressed all the comments. No further comments from this reviewer.
Experimental design is fine.
The findings are valid.
The authors have addressed all the comments. No further comments from this reviewer.
Dear Dr. Labib,
Thanks for your submission to PeerJ Computer Science. Could you please respond to the reviewers' comments and we are happy to receive your amended copy.
Reviewer 2 has suggested a specific reference. You may cite it if you believe it is especially relevant. However, I do not expect you to include the citation, and if you do not include it, this will not influence my decision.
Best regards
Abdel-Hamid
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors proposed proposes an approach for constructing and extending Bi-Directional mesh networks using low power consumption technologies inside various indoors and outdoors architectures called "an adaptable Spider - Mesh topology.". The use of ESP-NOW protocol as a communication technology added the advantage of longer communication distance versus a slight increase of consumed power. It provides 15 times longer distance compared to the BLE protocol while consuming only twice as much power.
In my opinion, this work is interesting and should be published after minor revisions.
I consider that the authors should clarify several aspects of the manuscript, for improving the clarity of the presentation. These are listed below.
1. In particular, the term running current is used in Electric Motor Testing, why authors have used the term in the manuscript?
2. The authors can be to consider show their lifetime experimental results in a table.
3. Can the authors measure the time of the response responses time between the different topologies?
This paper proposes an energy-efficient routing protocol for wireless sensor networks. The paper is well-written and easy to follow. Following are my comments:
1. There has been a great amount of work done on developing energy-efficient routing protocols, it would be better to distinguish your work from the existing literature or clearly mention the novel contributions.
2. I wonder if the proposed work can be used in extreme environments such as in-body or underwater {https://repository.kaust.edu.sa/handle/10754/664913, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8891506}
3. The results do not show a comparison to existing works to show its effectiveness.
The experimental design is clear.
There is no issue with the findings, only comparisons to existing schemes is missing.
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.