Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a mobile-user location prediction-based routing protocol in urban sensor networks. The proposed routing protocol utilizes packet delivery predictability and social strength to select the optimal data forwarding node to provide better performance compared with other benchmarked routing protocols. In general, the idea is interesting and the paper is well-written. However, the reviewer has the following concerns that need to be addressed.

1. Lines 251-251: "Network overhead" should be changed to other terminology for better clarity. It is easy to confuse with "the ratio of the number of (control) overheads to the number of generated messages". The reviewer suggested changing from "Overhead ratio" to "Delivery efficiency ratio".

2. "Spread C" in Figure 2 is confusing. The authors should rephrase it for better readability.

3. Descriptions of network size and how edge nodes and sensors are deployed in the network area were missing. Obviously, node density and initial node locations impact the network performance.

4. Wireless channel model was not mentioned. It is important because the packet delivery closely depends on the wireless channel quality.

5. Figure 3 should include other curves for different network parameters instead of only changing alpha. Furthermore, the packet delivery ratios of all evaluated routing protocols are less than 0.8, which is not very high.  Most of the benchmarked routing protocols used in Section 5 (Evaluation Results) were proposed before the year 2005 while other ones discussed in Section 2 (Related Work) were more newly published. The authors should explain the reasons for these matters.

6. Some minor typos and writing should be corrected. For example, in the Abstract part, line 3, "efficiently transfer from sensors to the sink" -> "efficiently transfer data from sensors to the sink"; line 93 should be right after line 92; line 148: "f" should be removed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

For comments see the attached Review.pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have adequately addressed all my previous concerns. I have no further comments; thus, recommend this manuscript for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors promptly and properly solved most part of the issues raised, also adjusting most of the paper writing style. The paper is accepted for me, but a last double-check is in order.