GEECO: Green Data Centers for Energy Optimization and Carbon Footprint Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. English is too Poor.
2. Methodology is missing.

3. Author fails to show the data of carbon emission.

4. I found only the basic description of machine language.. No authentic data or table...

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is too poor. Must be improved. and Author fails to show the data of carbon emission from the clouded net.

Statistical analysis is not there... without analysis of carbon emission data how author come t modelling.????

Author Response

Please find the response letter attached herewith.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents the GEECO model for greener data centers. It optimizes energy use by adjusting workloads and monitoring in real-time, resulting in efficiency gains, cost savings, and reduced carbon emissions. Herein are some comments to improve the quality of the presentation:

 

*The introduction effectively highlights the environmental challenges posed by conventional data centers. To further engage readers, you could add some statistics or recent developments to emphasize the urgency of the issue.*While the GEECO model is introduced well, it would be beneficial to provide more technical details or a flowchart illustrating how the model dynamically adjusts workload distribution and task assignment. This would help readers understand the mechanism better.*The article mentions real-time monitoring as a key component of the GEECO model. Elaborate on the specific technologies or tools used for this purpose. How frequently is data collected, and how is it analyzed?*The results section lacks specific data points or case studies to support the claims of increased energy efficiency and cost reduction. Providing quantitative data or examples would make the results more convincing.* Provide more insights into the challenges that might be encountered during implementation and how they can be overcome.*Ensure that the references are up-to-date and include recent studies or developments in the field of green data centers.* the article's language and grammar are generally good, but proofreading for minor grammatical errors and sentence structure improvements would enhance readability.

 

need improvements

Author Response

Please find the response letter attached herewith.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Report of Paper ID: sustainability- 2631020-peer-review-v1.pdf

I wish to commend the authors for painstakingly putting up this manuscript. However, the following are my observations that may further improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Title:

The title of the article is inappropriate based on the scenarios presented in the paper. It was found from the main body of the work that no country was used as case study hence, this title is inappropriate. Suggestion:

N/A

Abstract:

The abstract needs to be improved upon. The method and the quantitative result obtained are expected to be concisely presented.

Introduction:

1.       The introduction provided a solid and relevant backgrounds on the subject matter. However, except for minor editorial issue, the introduction is good to go.

2.       Please be specific. List the various sectors considered in this work (Line 26).

3.       Does integration of green data centers actually lead to reduction in power usage? and what are green data centers? (Line 46)

 

Literature Review:

1.       Though this section tends to provide useful backgrounds to the subject matter however, it is generally observed that there is lack of flow from one literature to another. Also, the literatures presented here are not well critique.

2.       Which papers? This is a wrong way to introduce a section. (Line 110)

3.       Table 1 is floating without explanation

4.       Minor editorial issues were observed please check the highlighted copy and correct accordingly.

Methodology:

The methodology is fairly okay however, the following corrections should be addressed.

1.                   How does the Cloudlets, Workload measurement system, Cache store, and encryption and decryption layer interact with each other in Figure 1`?

2.                   Figures 1 to 7 are floating. No reference was made to them in the body of the manuscript.

3.                   The data center layer was not depicted in the proposed architecture. (Line 277)

4.                   How is Data Center Layer differing from the Cloudlet Layer? Most of the capabilities of Cloudlet layer is repeated for Data Center Layer.

5.                   What parameter(s) is used to determine task dependency. (Line 314)

6.                   Which algorithm? (Line 324)

7.                   Kindly define all the model variables (Equations 1 to 6)

8.                   Highly abstractive sentence (Line 561)

9.                   There are few editorial issue and grammatical issue.

 

Result:

Attention should be given to the following:

1.                   The Table 2 is floating

2.                   How are the reported values in Table 2 gotten?

3.                   Missing information in the paragraph (Line 680)

4.                   There are few editorial issue and grammatical issue.

 

Conclusion:

i.         The conclusion can be improved upon by itemizing the highlights of this work.

References:

i.                     The number of cited references was listed and listed references were cited

 

Plagiarism:

58% plagiarism was detected which is considered to be abnormally high. This should be improved upon.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The author has a good use of English Language.

Author Response

Please find the response letter attached herewith.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Foubd Ok

Reviewer 2 Report

satisfied with the latest revision

OK

Reviewer 3 Report

Wish to commend the authors for painstakingly effecting the correction during R1