Dynamic Offloading in Flying Fog Computing: Optimizing IoT Network Performance with Mobile Drones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors proposed an offloading model based on dynamic programming tailored specifically for flying fog-based IoT networks. Overall, the idea of the manuscript is weak. There is no novelty presented in the paper. There is no clue regarding the algorithm proposed. Also, the authors claim dynamic programming. However, I didn't notice any mathematical proofs or mathematics to prove that the authors proposed dynamic programming. The proposed results are not up to the mark, and the novelty of the manuscript is not strong. Also, due to dynamic programming, the cost of the algorithm must be very high; however, the authors failed to prove the algorithm's complexity. The proposed network is also weak and doesn't show any novel framework. 

The format of the manuscript is not professional. The authors used some blurred and non-professional figures. The font of the figures is different from the text. 

While reading the manuscript, it was difficult to catch up with and understand the concept of the paper because of the write-up. There are several vague sentences that I didn't understand what the authors really wanted to say or deliver. I also found some English mistakes, and the authors didn't notice the typos mistakes they made while writing and some grammatical mistakes were also noticed. It, therefore, advises the authors to double-check the paper in the next revision. If possible, use English proofreading editors and get help from professionals. 

 

 

While reading the manuscript, it was difficult to catch up with and understand the concept of the paper because of the write-up. There are several vague sentences that I didn't understand what the authors really wanted to say or deliver. I also found some English mistakes, and the authors didn't notice the typos mistakes they made while writing and some grammatical mistakes were also noticed. It, therefore, advises the authors to double-check the paper in the next revision. If possible, use English proofreading editors and get help from professionals. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents  an optimal task assignment strategy by considering the mobility patterns of drones, the computational capacity of fog nodes, the communication constraints of the IoT devices, and the latency requirements. It will be interesting to see other works in the area  in optimisation. A good example can be the optimisation of the flying of the drone with works like : Serdaroglu, Kemal Cagri, Şebnem Baydere, Boonyarith Saovapakhiran, and Chalermpol Charnsripinyo. "Location Aware Fog Computing Based Air Quality Monitoring System." In 2023 International Conference on Smart Applications, Communications and Networking (SmartNets), pp. 1-6. IEEE, 2023. and Andreou, A., Mavromoustakis, C. X., Batalla, J. M., Markakis, E. K., Mastorakis, G., & Mumtaz, S. (2023). UAV Trajectory Optimisation in Smart Cities using Modified A* Algorithm Combined with Haversine and Vincenty Formulas. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.   The using of betters algorithms can also compare to the current approach. The Paper is in very good state and with this minor changes can be improved and be a good study in the area.    

 

The quality of presentation is good. It is always good a native speaker to check the wording.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The statistical analysis in this paper is suitable. In terms of experimental technique, this paper is conventional. I recommend that this paper be accepted after minor revision.

1.      The Methods section does not clearly explain. Some more explanation is needed

2.      The significance of figure-1 is not clearly mentioned

3.      More explanation is needed how emulator was implemented using universal software radio peripheral (USRP) 490 module (In page number12).

4.      More explanation is required why The first cell in the table is always left empty, and the other cells are filled with the 394 generated random bit streams as ones (1) in the upcoming horizontal unit and zeros (0) in 395 the upcoming vertical unit(page no 9)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper addresses the interesting challenges of performance optimization for the IoT network by proposing a new framework for dynamically offloading IoT tasks in flying fog computing using Drones.

The article is well written and organized, however, it needs to be revised and edited by looking at the comments and suggestions below:

- Related Work section, in the last paragraph, a justification is required for addressing only the three mentioned challenges " first, second, and fourth issues"

- Computation Model section, the equations 6-13 required demonstration

-  For Algorithm 1, more details are required since it refers to a number of functions

- Figure 5, the unit of the data size should be mentioned.

- Experimental Evaluation subsystem, results presented in figures 12-15 need to be explained and discussed.

- Finally, in the Conclusion section, conclusions based on the produced results should be added to this section

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

In this manuscript, the authors propose an algorithm for task assignment in a flying fog computing environment, aiming to improve latency, resource availability, and cost. To be specific, they introduce drones with computing facilities in conjunction with multiple access edge (MEC) servers, and the proposed algorithm decides the optimal solution to place tasks of IoT devices: in flying fog (drones) or in MEC.

In summary, the problem is useful and practical, and the authors support their work with case studies and performance evaluations. It is a well-written, well-structured paper that can be of interest to potential readers.

 

It is a nice work, and the authors could further improve it by:
a) Add the structure of the paper at the end of the first section,
b) Include unit metrics in figures (e.g., Figure 4-7: how delay times are expressed),
c) The authors use simulation (with MATLAB) and a hardware testbed to evaluate their work. What is their purpose, and what do they serve? They could provide opinions on the subject in the context of a discussion and make it clear to the reader whether the results converge.
 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I don't see any significant revision in the revised manuscript. The authors had just made a few minor changes that didn't satisfy the novelty of the manuscript. The novelty of the manuscript is still doubtful and unclear. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx