A Static Assignment Algorithm of Uniform Jobs to Workers in a User-PC Computing System Using Simultaneous Linear Equations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the article is well written and structured, the novelty or interest of the proposal presented in this paper is not detected with respect to the authors' previous works related to the same development. In fact, this article presents a development that can be considered a particular and simplified case of the authors' initial proposal. Moreover, the proposed model does not present problems as it is a simplification, the relevance of which is not justified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main objective of the manuscript is to present a proposed algorithm for reducing the time required to perform distributed computations (tasks), namely minimizing the maximum makespan among workers. This algorithm is then tested on three sample applications. 

The general concept of the manuscript is at a reasonable level, and the area under study makes sense. However, the style of the manuscript in terms of the layout of the individual chapters and subchapters should be revised and the following observations should be addressed:

1) The section in Chapter 3 should state the entire problem, not just one sentence of what the section will address. Furthermore, it is unclear why one sentence in Chapter 3 is followed by Subchapter 3.1, where there is only one Figure 1, followed by Subchapter 3.1.1. The same pay for 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.3, 3.3.1. In addition, section 3.2.1 states what has already been stated in the introduction—the same for section 3.3.1. The paper needs to be restructured in terms of subchapters and reduced to a readable form.  

2) Similarly, what has already been published by the authors in their previous articles need only refer to the subject matter; this applies especially to the applications used for testing and their description. This information has already been published previously.

3) Another problem is using Figures 2, 4, and 5, which are used from the authors' previous publications. They need to be either redrawn, or a reference added for copyright reasons. 

4) It is necessary to follow the official template. Not all abbreviations are listed, such as ILP. A list of abbreviations should also be included at the end of the publication for clarity.

5) The conclusion of the article is very brief and contains no discussion of the research conducted. Alternatively, the discussion section is entirely missing, which should include a discussion of the results achieved, their pros and cons, and also their limitations. 

6) The references are not correct in terms of their form. Specifically, references 4, 6, and 18 cannot be just URL links. References have rules for URLs as well. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposes a new assignment algorithm to derive solutions of a particular problem.  The evaluation for comparisons is provided. The results show the effectiveness of their algorithm.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments were accepted and corrected. I have no further comments. The article is now clear and readable with no obvious problems.