Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please to kindly read the attached file. Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time to review the manuscript and highlighted the concerns which strengthen our manuscript.
Following are the point-by-point response to your raised concerns.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: Authors include the EEDG (Line 96) protocol inside the comparison, but no details about it are given. Perhaps they referred to the protocol Energy-Effective Cooperative and Reliable Delivery Routing Protocols for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (EERD)explained in Section 2.7.
Author response and action: Agreed. Thank you for highlighting the issue.
Author action: We have updated the manuscript, and the EERD discussion has been replaced with the EEDG, which is the considered protocol in the results and comparison.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: In the same line, I don't understand why the DNAR protocol is explained in section 2.8, which is never used to compare with the rest of the protocols, and no results are given related to it.
Author response and action: Agreed. Thank you for the in-depth review.
Author action: We have updated and corrected the updated manuscript. It was added for the literature purpose, but in the updated manuscript, we have deleted the DNAR section because, as per the comment, it's not part of the comparison and results.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: Additionally, I suppose every protocol has its own packet structure (head/payload), so it is important to show the bits length of the packet in Table 1 to take it into account for evaluating the energy consumption.
Author response and action: Thank you so much for this Suggestion. We have added the bit length in Table 1 in the updated manuscript.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 4: I don't understand at all the next phrase (Lines 285 – 288 )" The EH-UWSN uses less energy that EERBCR, Mulsi-Co, GCORP, and EEDG. The mentioned protocol recharges the sensor node batteries from the surrounding objectives to improve the network lifetime by decreasing energy consumption"". What of those protocols (EH-UWSN, EERBCR, Mulsi-Co, GCORP, EEDG) are the "mentioned" which makes the recharge? All of them?
Author response and action: Thank you for pointing out the issue. The misprints issue has been resolved and updated the mentioned lines in updated manuscripts.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 5: How is possible to give end-to-end delay results if the data bit error rate of the modem is not given? I think this is a high importance missing data in that section 3.1.2, that invalidates the results given. Please to include the data rate considered clearly.in this section, I consedred that is needed a further discussion about the results. For example, if the length packet of the different protocols is not the same, is more probable to loose long packets than short packets. Moreover, this section has no data about the BER, which is very determinant in the PDR.
Author response: Thank you for pointing out the issue.
Author action: Data rate is mentioned in Table 1 in the updated manuscript.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 6: Similar occurs in the section 1.4, number of alive nodes. what is the maximum capacity of the batteries of a node to know its lifetime? This information is missing, so is impossible to make measurements of how long a node can be active or alive in the different protocols analyzed.
Author response: Thank you for pointing out the issue.
Author action: To understand the maximum capacity of the batteries and maximum rounds of the network, we have included related information in Table 1 which can be seen in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Authors may revise the abstract to elaborate more on the problem statement, findings, and contributions.
2. Introduction is not clear. Authors may contribute more towards this.
3. Authors may elaborate more on the novelty/contribution of their work and how it contributes to the literature in the second last paragraph of the introduction clearly.
4. Authors need to be specific about their problem statement and the scope of their research.
5. Overall, the paper presentation requires improvement.
6. Thorough proofreading is recommended.
7. A few of the figure’s resolutions are not clear and hard to read
8. A few references are missing some information; you may complete them critically.
9. The conclusion is not clear and needs revision and clarity and alignment with the abstract and title.
10. Provided references are better enough. However, authors are recommended to consider more latest and related, such as,
Muzammal, S. M., Murugesan, R. K., & Jhanjhi, N. Z. (2020). A comprehensive review on secure routing in internet of things: Mitigation methods and trust-based approaches. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(6), 4186-4210.
Shafiq, M., Ashraf, H., Ullah, A., Masud, M., Azeem, M., Jhanjhi, N., & Humayun, M. (2021). Robust cluster-based routing protocol for IoT-assisted smart devices in WSN. Computers, Materials & Continua, 67(3), 3505-3521.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time to review the manuscript and highlighted the concerns which strengthen our manuscript.
Following are the point-by-point response to your raised concerns.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: Authors may revise the abstract to elaborate more on the problem statement, findings, and contributions.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We are agreed with the reviewer's concern. The abstract has been revised, and changes have been added where required.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: Introduction is not clear. Authors may contribute more towards this.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We have checked the introduction section, made the required changes, and added some new related articles.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 3: Authors may elaborate more on the novelty/contribution of their work and how it contributes to the literature in the second last paragraph of the introduction clearly.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We have checked the contribution and revised it in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 5: Thorough proofreading is recommended.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. The manuscript is proofread by an English expert who has checked the overall manuscript and deployed the changes where required.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 6: A few of the figure's resolutions are not clear and hard to read.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. All the figures were checked and changed those whose resolution was not cleared.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 7: A few references are missing some information; you may complete them critically.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We have added some new articles in the updated manuscript.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 8: The conclusion is not clear and needs revision and clarity and alignment with the abstract and title.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. The conclusion was checked and revised as per the reviewer's comments.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 9: Provided references are better enough. However, authors are recommended to consider more latest and related, such as,
Muzammal, S. M., Murugesan, R. K., & Jhanjhi, N. Z. (2020). A comprehensive review on secure routing in internet of things: Mitigation methods and trust-based approaches. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(6), 4186-4210.
Shafiq, M., Ashraf, H., Ullah, A., Masud, M., Azeem, M., Jhanjhi, N., & Humayun, M. (2021). Robust cluster-based routing protocol for IoT-assisted smart devices in WSN. Computers, Materials & Continua, 67(3), 3505-3521.horough proofreading is recommended.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We have added the mentioned references in the updated manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, the authors evaluate seven different cooperative energy consumption routing protocols to investigate which is better regarding different network performance benchmarks. The paper is in good writing. However, the technical content lack novelty, which causes this paper needs major revision.
(1)The authors use too much content to introduce seven existing protocols and analyze their performance while failing to propose their own protocols and comparing their design with existing works, which may lack a major contribution.
(2)In section 3, the simulation evaluation part, the author should add a systemic discussion regarding the performance benchmarks that get simulated and plotted to make their work much more convincing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time to review the manuscript and highlighted the concerns which strengthen our manuscript.
Following are the point-by-point response to your raised concerns.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 1: The authors use too much content to introduce seven existing protocols and analyze their performance while failing to propose their own protocols and comparing their design with existing works, which may lack a major contribution.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We have designed and developed our own routing protocol i.e. RACE-SM, which has been published recently. In this article just, we analyzed and compared our proposed and developed protocol RACE-SM with other recently developed routing schemes. And as per the simulation results, it shows better results than all other schemes.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 2: In section 3, the simulation evaluation part, the author should add a systemic discussion regarding the performance benchmarks that get simulated and plotted to make their work much more convincing.
Author response and action: Thank you for your Suggestion. We have updated the manuscript as per the reviewer comment. The systematic discussion regarding the performance and the simulation results has been added in updated manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In spite of a more in detail work is possible, explaining more details about the comparison performed, the manuscript is enough good to be published in my opinion.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed all the comments and concerns carefully. The manuscript stands for acceptance now.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version has addressed all my concerns. The paper can be accepted in its present form now.
