Aggregated Boolean Query Processing for Document Retrieval in Edge Computing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes an aggregated Boolean query processing technique in the context of edge computing, in which each sub-region of the network corresponds to an edge network governed by an edge server. The efficiency and usefulness of this decentralised processing technique for the document retrieval problem have been demonstrated by the authors.

My key findings are given as under:

1. It's confusing to me how the authors came up with and carried out this study without first doing a thorough literature review.
2. Because research proposing a new procedure, framework, platform, model, theory, idea, or system must perform an extensive evaluation of the existing literature. In the new literature review, your work and the current state of the art must be compared and contrasted. Beginning in 2019, I suggest include a comprehensive literature review section that incorporates current research in this topic. A minimum of 20 recent studies must be included.
3. The authors provide little details on how they accomplished the efficiency and applicability of their decentralised processing approach for the document retrieval challenge without comparing their approach with earlier studies.
4. Some sentences appear in both the Introduction and the Literature Review sections. Please redo them.
5. The references are not acceptable. They're barely 22 in total. The most of them are not recent. I would recommend that the authors include at least 25 more current references in the work (from the year 2019 onwards).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend adding to the article examples with “real” data. Now the article is difficult to understand.

The authors wrote that in the “Experiments” section described the comparison of the proposed approach will be with traditional algorithms. But it is difficult to understand where results for proposed and traditional methods are.

I suggest expanding the conclusions to show the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approach.

Also, I suggest moving the section “Related work” after the “Introduction” section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for making changes to the paper. I'm satisfied with your responses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf