EEDLABA: Energy-Efficient Distance- and Link-Aware Body Area Routing Protocol Based on Clustering Mechanism for Wireless Body Sensor Network
, Tariq Hussain 3,*,†, Farhad Ali 4, Sayyed Mudassar Shah 1 and Haseeb Ur Rahman 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Remote Healthcare is emerging as a research area of ​​special interest in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and distancing social. However, the health monitoring sensors of WBAN have limited energy. This is the main challenge to deploy remote healthcare solutions. Hence, this paper is interesting and attractive. However, it should be major revised to enhance the quality, as follows:
1) Obviously, WBAN is a combination of smart health sensors, IoT devices, and solutions that rely on 5G Internet infrastructure. I can't find out these issues throughout the paper. The authors should mention the relationship between WBAN, Smart Healthcare, and 5G and its challenges to highlight the contributions of this work. The challenges are mentioned in the recent study, you can refer to it or some other works (Smart Healthcare IoT Applications based on Fog Computing: Architecture, Applications and Challenges).
2) In Section 2, some missing recent studies, I can indicate some (CEPRM: A Cloud-assisted Energy-Saving and Performance-Improving Routing Mechanism for MANETs). Why do you choose "No. of nodes" as 10? more explanations for this issue.
3) In Section 4, the measure metrics should be defined by Equations. 4) Why is Figure 2(a) on page 13? I think it is Figure 5(2).
5) All Figures should be enhanced with a resolution of 300 dpi (Fig. 3-7).
6) The conclusion should be shortened written.
Author Response
EEDLABA: Energy Efficient Distance and Link Aware Body Area Routing Protocol Based on Clustering Mechanism for Wireless Body Sensor Network
To: Applied Sciences Editor
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers),
(b) an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes, (c) a clean updated manuscript without highlights (Main Manuscript).
Best regards,
Reviewer 1 Comments and responses
Remote Healthcare is emerging as a research area of ​​special interest in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and distancing social. However, the health monitoring sensors of WBAN have limited energy. This is the main challenge to deploy remote healthcare solutions. Hence, this paper is interesting and attractive. However, it should be major revised to enhance the quality, as follows:
Author response: We are thankful to the reviewer for sparing their valuable time to review this paper. As suggested by the reviewer, we have modified the manuscript.
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 1: Obviously, WBAN is a combination of smart health sensors, IoT devices, and solutions that rely on 5G Internet infrastructure. I can't find out these issues throughout the paper. The authors should mention the relationship between WBAN, Smart Healthcare, and 5G and its challenges to highlight the contributions of this work. The challenges are mentioned in the recent study, you can refer to it or some other works (Smart Healthcare IoT Applications based on Fog Computing: Architecture, Applications and Challenges).
Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we summarized the related work to make it more attractive for readers.
Please see the section 2 in the revised manuscript)
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 2: In Section 2, some missing recent studies, I can indicate some (CEPRM: A Cloud-assisted Energy-Saving and Performance-Improving Routing Mechanism for MANETs).
Response: Thank you. We have summarized the limitations of the existing work at the end of related work section. In addition, we have included the latest energy routing/techniques of WBAN, which represents the performance of the existing works. In the revised version, we have included literature summery and added the above reference.
(Please see the end of related work section in the revised manuscript)
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 3: Why do you choose "No. of nodes" as 10? more explanations for this issue.
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. The total 9 nodes have been deployed in the design of EEDLABA routing protocol for WBAN. By mistake it was written 10 nodes instead of 9. (The justification paragraph for this comment has been given in the manuscript after Table 2.
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 4: In Section 4, the measure metrics should be defined by Equations.
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. All the changes have been incorporated and highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 5: Why is Figure 2(a) on page 13? I think it is Figure 5(2).
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. Yes, this is Figure 5 (2), This issue have been resolved accordingly. Actually, all the Figures are numbered as Figure 5 (a), (b), and (c).
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 6: All Figures should be enhanced with a resolution of 300 dpi (Fig. 3-7).
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. All the figures qualities have been improved accordingly in the manuscript.
Rewiewer#1, Concern # 7: The conclusion should be shortened written.
Response: Thank you. In the revised version, the future work and limitations are included at the end of conclusion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors proposed a routing approach EEDLABA for WBAN with few improvements like placement of nodes, path loss and distance models, with less energy consumption mechanism.
In Introduction section, there are a lot of data about the basics like what is WBAN etc. The focus must be on the introduction of the area, routing, energy reduction mechanisms etc.
in Related work section, the authors stated, . The growth of wireless networks is the primary topic of the research carried out by the researchers, there is no need to refer what is wireless network. furthermore there is no need to discuss what sensor node is made of. Antenna design has nothing to do with the research in energy efficient routing.
The focus of the related work section should be existing work done in energy efficient routing for WBAN, their limitations, their challenges, and how the proposed model is addressing those limitations.
This paper does not address the questions like, if there are only 9 nodes around human body, why clustering is needed? why they donot directly communicate with the BS? clustering is normally done in cases having a lot of nodes with huge covering area? In this proposal, if all nodes are gathering data and then sending to the one cluster head, what about the energy consumption of cluster head? what if all the nodes directly communicate with the BS?
Please present the packet format with fields.
routing path? the porposed protocol is inspired from reactive or proactive routing model?
in this paper, there are many unsloved what, why, if.
Author Response
EEDLABA: Energy Efficient Distance and Link Aware Body Area Routing Protocol Based on Clustering Mechanism for Wireless Body Sensor Network
To: Applied Sciences Editor
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers),
(b) an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes, (c) a clean updated manuscript without highlights (Main Manuscript).
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Comments and responses
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 1: In this paper, the authors proposed a routing approach EEDLABA for WBAN with few improvements like placement of nodes, path loss and distance models, with less energy consumption mechanism.
Author response: We are thankful to the reviewer for sparing their valuable time to review this paper. As suggested by the reviewer, we have modified the manuscript.
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 2: In Introduction section, there are a lot of data about the basics like what is WBAN etc. The focus must be on the introduction of the area, routing, energy reduction mechanisms etc.
Author response: Thank you. We have addressed this comment in the revised manuscript. In addition, the whole manuscript is thoroughly revised to improve its English quality.
(Please see the Introduction Section, highlighted text, in the revised manuscript)
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 3: In Related work section, the authors stated, . The growth of wireless networks is the primary topic of the research carried out by the researchers, there is no need to refer what is wireless network. furthermore there is no need to discuss what sensor node is made of. Antenna design has nothing to do with the research in energy efficient routing.
Response: Thank you. We have summarized the limitations of the existing work at the end of related work section. In addition, we have included the latest energy routing/techniques of WBAN. The only focus has been made on energy consumption and energy efficiency in the updated section 2, which represents the performance of the existing works. In the revised version, we have included literature summery and added the above reference.
(Please see the end of related work section in the revised manuscript)
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 4: The focus of the related work section should be existing work done in energy efficient routing for WBAN, their limitations, their challenges, and how the proposed model is addressing those limitations.
Response: Thank you. We have summarized the limitations of the existing work at the end of related work section. In addition, we have included the latest energy routing/techniques of WBAN. The only focus has been made on energy consumption and energy efficiency in the updated section 2, which represents the performance of the existing works. In the revised version, we have included literature summery and added the above reference.
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 5: This paper does not address the questions like, if there are only 9 nodes around human body, why clustering is needed? why they do not directly communicate with the BS? clustering is normally done in cases having a lot of nodes with huge covering area? In this proposal, if all nodes are gathering data and then sending to the one cluster head, what about the energy consumption of cluster head? What if all the nodes directly communicate with the BS?
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. In total 9 sensor nodes have been deployed in the design of EEDLABA proposed protocol. The clustering mechanism has been done on the said sensor nodes. Mostly, the clustering done in the situations where there are so many nodes in the network to overcome the routing and flooding mechanism among the sensor nodes. In EEDLABA protocol the clustering has been done for mere 9 sensor nodes. The most important and basic motive by using the clustering approach for this scenario is that the nodes have been place in an appropriate position where the coordinator and the BS node. If all the nodes communicate directly with the C node and BS, then these will cause the flooding and half issue among all the nodes and then it’ll be difficult to avoid some such circumstances. The mere fact for clustering is that the nodes have limited source of energy and this work is based on energy efficiency. So, to deal with the energy consumption and to deliver an energy efficient protocol, the clustering approach is the best way to avoid from the path loss, delays, and also to increase the network lifetime.
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 6: Please present the packet format with fields.
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. All the changes have been incorporated and highlighted in the main manuscript.
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 7: routing path? the porposed protocol is inspired from reactive or proactive routing model?
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. The network layer have been used for the purpose of communication and since the proposed EEDLABA protocol is based in LAEEBA and DARE thus the proposed protocol is not reactive neither proactive. In fact, the proposed protocol is a hybrid.
Rewiewer#2, Concern # 8: in this paper, there are many unsolved what, why, if.
Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. All the ambiguities if any in the paper have been resolved to the best of our knowledge.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should double check all reference and DOI
