Combining Wi-Fi Fingerprinting and Pedestrian Dead Reckoning to Mitigate External Factors for a Sustainable Indoor Positioning System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, “Combining Wi-Fi Fingerprinting and PDR to Mitigate External Factors for a Sustainable Indoor Positioning System” The topic is very important, but I think that the methods in this article are not adequately described, are not clear, and do not rise to become a full contribution to your journal, so my advice recommends improving the simulation results. However, I have some comments and suggestions for the authors. as follows:

1- The authors should write the abbreviations   to clarify the meaning of HVAC, WLAN, RADAR

2- The author must write the abbreviations only one time (NLOS) at the beginning of the article.

3- The authors must show the new contributions, also the contributions are not clear and should be rewritten more accurately.

4- What is the difference between your work and this work" Combining Wi-Fi Fingerprinting and PDR to improve the robustness and overall accuracy" based on analysis of the results and system model?

5- What are the contributions, and the novelty of this work compared to related works? There is not enough discussion regarding the comparison between this work and others.

6- The contribution of this article is not clear, so, the authors must develop the novelty and make it clearer.

7- The author must follow the rule for the algorithm in terms of Loops and Conditionals as shown in algorithm1.

8- The equation is not sequenced and correlated as shown in Algorithm 1, where sometimes writing in terms i, and sometimes t. 

9- The section simulation results don't have any contributions or novelties compared with previous related studies, so, the authors must improve results based on LOS.

10- The authors must improve the explanation for figures in simulation results, whereas the figures are incomplete explanations and inadequate. The result section is not convincing and should be compared with previous studies.

 

In this article, “Combining Wi-Fi Fingerprinting and PDR to Mitigate External Factors for a Sustainable Indoor Positioning System” The topic is very important, but I think that the methods in this article are not adequately described, are not clear, and do not rise to become a full contribution to your journal, so my advice recommends improving the simulation results. However, I have some comments and suggestions for the authors. as follows:

1- The authors should write the abbreviations   to clarify the meaning of HVAC, WLAN, RADAR

2- The author must write the abbreviations only one time (NLOS) at the beginning of the article.

3- The authors must show the new contributions, also the contributions are not clear and should be rewritten more accurately.

4- What is the difference between your work and this work" Combining Wi-Fi Fingerprinting and PDR to improve the robustness and overall accuracy" based on analysis of the results and system model?

5- What are the contributions, and the novelty of this work compared to related works? There is not enough discussion regarding the comparison between this work and others.

6- The contribution of this article is not clear, so, the authors must develop the novelty and make it clearer.

7- The author must follow the rule for the algorithm in terms of Loops and Conditionals as shown in algorithm1.

8- The equation is not sequenced and correlated as shown in Algorithm 1, where sometimes writing in terms i, and sometimes t. 

9- The section simulation results don't have any contributions or novelties compared with previous related studies, so, the authors must improve results based on LOS.

10- The authors must improve the explanation for figures in simulation results, whereas the figures are incomplete explanations and inadequate. The result section is not convincing and should be compared with previous studies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors try to improve an indoor positioning accuracy of WiFi by a way of abandoning nodes with significant errors during the traditional calculation process.  This (Including grid segmentation) is just an engineering implementation with a slight contribution. In fact the Bluetooth has supported AOA since its fifth version and the accuracy of UWB has reached the centimeter level. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is difficult to see the major problem the work tries to solve in the Introduction section. And it is lengthy to read. 

 

Why is the proposed approach better than previous approaches?

 

What are the major technical contributions in this work?

 

What are the limitations of the proposed approach?

 

For the offline training part, how large is the dataset? How did this work obtain the dataset?

 

Can you detail how you collect the training dataset in the experiment section?

The quality of English looks fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are still some comments Not answered. So please answer all the comments as follows:

 

1- The section simulation results don't have any contributions or novelties compared with previous related studies, so, the authors must improve results based on LOS.

2- The authors must improve the explanation for figures in simulation results, whereas the figures are incomplete explanations and inadequate. The result section is not convincing and should be compared with previous studies.

There are still some comments Not answered. So please answer all the comments as follows:

 

1- The section simulation results don't have any contributions or novelties compared with previous related studies, so, the authors must improve results based on LOS.

2- The authors must improve the explanation for figures in simulation results, whereas the figures are incomplete explanations and inadequate. The result section is not convincing and should be compared with previous studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors had answered most comments in the previous review.

One remaining question is how the authors determined the T_{DR}'s value, which is 4m, described in Section 4? A further related question, why did the authors choose 8 as the step number for PDR? 

Please check the equation description text.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf