Multi-Resource Computing Offload Strategy for Energy Consumption Optimization in Mobile Edge Computing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presented is interesting and fits in the theme of the Journal.
The ability of synthesis of the authors is highlighted, presenting their arguments in an objective way and with a good writing quality. The reading is fluid and easy to understand.
The literature review is robust, being referenced scientific articles of reference publications, recent and properly framed in the area.

The following two points should be improved:

- The paper is well structured, however, the "Discussion" chapter, required by the Journal, is not sufficiently evidenced, identified or developed.

- On page 2 the authors state: "Computational offloading has been studied by many scholars at home and abroad as an effective means to save device energy and reduce latency in edge computing networks". - However, the authors do not identify any author or study. At the end of this phrase the authors should place the respective bibliographical references that support the statement made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents an approach for energy consumption optimization in the mobile edge computing environment. The proposed solution is based on a multi-resource computing unloading energy consumption model.

While the paper is readable, there are many writing issues – unclear sentences, style errors, formatting errors (algorithm code, some tables, and equations), poor quality figures, etc.

One of the key issues of the paper is the lack of a clear and strong motivation for yet another optimization approach for energy consumption optimization. Although, in literature, many studies have already been presented that address the topic. 

The authors should consider the literature in-depth, especially those of Web science Journals.

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/17/4363

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877882101046X

Please review the literature as the main keywords of the topic. 

Energy consumptions optimization, Existing scheduling approaches. 

What are the limitations of the existing approaches? Why did you hypothesize multi resources computing unloading energy consumption model will solve those issues? Unfortunately, neither the introduction containig section nor the related work section highlights research gaps.

The descriptions of the result figures simply summarize those figures without explaining the potential reasons for the results. 

Moreover, the design choices such as fitness function for PSO, and the configurations of the PSO, should be described in more detail.

Please provide some information about the case studies on cloud edge environments and mobile edge computing environments.

The authors mentioned that they used Matlab for the simulation,  was this study's only simulation study. 

The authors should provide experimental environment details, such as how they emulate an IoT environment. 

What is the impact of the proposed task scheduling on throughput, latency, and other metrics?

Please restructure the manuscript formatting based on recently published papers from the processes. 

Improve the references of the text; why only 26. I can count more than 26 in here just related to the topic of this study. Please set back and improve the background and related work of the study to find the research gap.

 There is no discussion section – please discuss the implications of your results, how they are related to the existing literature, the significance, and comparison of this study, etc.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors attempted to improve the papers but failed to answer most of my concerns. I recommend the authors consider the paper modifications in a major way.

For instance, the author attempted to summarize relevant papers

in Table 1. But it still lacks the research gap. I will recommend the authors to search more web of science indexed literature

which presents methodologies and not to consider summarizing existing review papers' work.

Instead, focus on the methodologies as you are not comparing your work with review papers.

 

In response to my one concern, the author only introduced PSO in the results section, please attempt this again, and all introductory topics should be explained 

in the introduction section. Please revise the structure of the manuscript.

The descriptions of the result figures simply summarize those figures without explaining the potential reasons for the results. 

 

Please summarize the design choices, such as the fitness function for PSO and the configurations of the PSO in tabular form in the experimental section.

 

"The workflow is generated 389 randomly by DGA, with the number of tasks of 50-300 for each workflow" please provide proof of randomly doing this from the literature.

Please note that random data-based experiments do not provide realization of the actual experiment.

Please use track changes for each change you make to the updated version of the manuscript.

 

 

Subsection 5.1 should be titled such that it presents the simulation nature of the environment. 

 

I can't find the modifications; please provide line numbers and highlight the changes, " In this paper, the effect of task scheduling on throughput and latency is modified. Efficient task scheduling can improve the throughput of the mobile edge computing system, ensure the quality of data processing, reduce the delay caused by data processing, and solve the performance of the whole computing system to a large extent."

please provides a summary as the table of comparative analyses of throughput, latency, and other metrics

 

Please restructure the manuscript formatting based on recently published papers from the processes. (For instance, follow the mdpi template)

 

The authors attempted to improve the references, but important literature is missing; when you don't consider the literature adequately, it means you cant provide good background and research gap to the study.

 

In summary, I see an answer we modified, but please use track changes and provide line numbers to easily see the changes.

 

Best of luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx