A Research Study on an Entropy-Weighted Multi-View Fusion Approach for Agricultural WSN Data Based on Fuzzy Clustering

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The paper presentation has to be improved very much in order to be considered further. The technical methodology proposed  is scarce in details and the few given formulas are not clearly explained and,even some of them, have apparently a lack of clear checking  for their final  self-contained presentation.

- Eqn. 2: J/subm is not fixed nor given some special form or the properties or constraints that  it has to fulfill.

- The variables of J/subm, ( U, v), are not given and explained.

- J/sub m depends of m but , for a particular testing in an example, does it depend on the dimension D and on the number of samples N, or just on N?.

-Eqn. (3): Meaning of H/sub m and argument low case “c”.

- Denominator of Eqn. (3): meaning of 1/sub beta.

- Give more details on the terms” fuzzy goal” and “fuzzy constraint”.

- Algorithm on pages 5, 6: It should be better accompanied by some analytical description, as usual in  algorithms,  along its various steps. It is  now very descriptive and vague by using just wording.

- Section 5: it is not clear how the previous algorithm is used here since such an algorithm does not follow a clear setting of its steps.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)    The title is not very informative and could be reworked to better reflect the content of the manuscript.

2)    Sec. I  - Please clarify in more detail the following challenge specification: “Third, although farmland environments change periodically, these changes occur slowly across crop growth cycles”.

3)    The statement of contributions should be enriched/reworked so as to better underline the technical challenges tackled in this work regarding WSN in agriculture.

4)    Related work discussion should be complemented with a table categorizing the reviewed works along their main distinctive axes so as to better position the present contribution.

5)    Related to the above comment, a significant share of literature on clustered-based WSNs has been missed, e.g.
Aldalahmeh, Sami A., and Domenico Ciuonzo. "Distributed detection fusion in clustered sensor networks over multiple access fading channels." IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks 8 (2022): 317-329.
Tian, Qingjiang, and Edward J. Coyle. "Optimal distributed detection in clustered wireless sensor networks." IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 55.7 (2007): 3892-3904.
Wu, Linlong, et al. "Optimization based sensor placement for multi-target localization with coupling sensor clusters." IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks 9 (2023): 596-

6)    Sec. 2 is very short: either it should be enriched or merged with successive section.

7)    In this paper, a statement of the problem is virtually lacking. Please state the problem in a formal fashion before introducing the proposed clustering solution.

8)    Sec. 5 – It is not clear whether the monitored data are real or simulated. The section reads “experimental results” while the authors state that “WSN with 200 nodes was simulated to verify 224 the fusion efficiency”. Additionally, if real data were used, details on reproducibility and data availability should be provided by the authors.

9)    The working principle of the considered baselines for comparison should be recalled aiming at a self-contained paper.

10)    Related to the above comment, computational complexity analysis should be also taken into account.

 

****************** Any papers recommended in the report are for reference only. They are not mandatory. You may cite and reference other papers related to this topic. ******************

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved according to the given suggestions. The content  fits well the scope of this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments.