Improved Performance and Cost Algorithm for Scheduling IoT Tasks in Fog–Cloud Environment Using Gray Wolf Optimization Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction should provide a clear overview of the problem domain and the significance of improving task scheduling in the context of the Fog-Cloud environment and IoT.

 

Clearly define the problem you are addressing. What are the challenges and limitations of existing task scheduling algorithms in this specific environment?

 

Discuss and compare related works comprehensively. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of existing task scheduling algorithms, especially those using optimization techniques.

 

Describe the Gray Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm used in detail. Explain how it is adapted or integrated into the task scheduling algorithm.

 

Provide a clear explanation of the evaluation metrics and datasets used.

 

What novel aspects does your task scheduling algorithm bring to the field of Fog-Cloud computing and IoT?

 

Summarize the key findings and contributions of the paper in the conclusion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Use clear and concise language throughout the paper.

Author Response

Deare reviewer , editor 

Thank you for   comments, i responded all comments, i hope will get acceptance. 

Kind Regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract authors use acronyms the first time without showing their meaning.

The article is remarkably similar to the paper they cite in 5 (where they are co-authors). However, they do not explain the difference in approach and why they do not consider the method they proposed there for comparison. It should be there.

The authors should also explain why they used different comparison methods in the two articles.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

An extensive English revision is mandatory, most of the sentences are extremely hard to follow.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers 

Thank you for comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this manuscript, the authors delve into the exploration of optimization algorithms applied to IoT task management between cloud and fog computing. The inherent challenges of resource utilization and delays in IoT-based actions are indeed pertinent. However, the scientific merit of this manuscript is open to scrutiny. While the authors articulate their utilization of various optimization algorithms, a thorough comparison of their effectiveness is lacking. The primary findings, presented in figures 5, 6, and 7, lack supporting statistical considerations or evidence confirming multiple-run results. It remains unclear whether the efficiency demonstrated is a product of a single run, potentially influenced by fortuitous initial conditions.

 

Furthermore, the use of the abbreviation PCA for "Performance and Cost Algorithm" introduces confusion, as PCA commonly denotes Principle Component Analysis in this domain. In conclusion, while there are commendable aspects to this manuscript, it falls short of readiness for publication. Additional rigor in methodology, statistical analysis, and clarity in terminology is necessary to enhance its scientific credibility.

1.  

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers 

Thank you for evaluating your time 

I hope will get final acceptance 

Kind Regrds

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents interesting research. However, it presents several relevant points which should be review:

a)      The title requires attention, e.g. “in Fog-Cloud Environment in IoT”. The IoT is an element inside the Fog-Cloud environment not the opposite.

b)      In the abstract appears acronyms such as PCA, PC-GWO and PSO which are not explained and later appears the meaning of those.

c)      The keywords are all presented without any logical sense.

d)      All sections and sub-sections from the paper do not have numbers. Is this correct?

e)      The Introduction section starts with a very unnecessary explanation about IoT and references.

f)       The final paragraph from the introduction section does not mention the reason for the sections and the Conclusion section is missing.

g)      A table with related work and characteristics is important to present details of those.

h)      The “System Model” section seems to be the Proposed Architecture. Important to observe that figure 1 should be labelled as System Architecture.

i)        A Problem Definitions sub-section must be more explained in terms of challenges and goals.

j)        A small sentence is desirable explaining a bit more about each goal.

k)      The Result section could be better designed, in terms of challenges and achievements.

l)        The Conclusion section has a unique sentence about future work. Which could be changed to a rich scenario of your experiment experiences and efforts. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text should be carefully reviewed to target the research goals. In addition to avoid ordinaries errors

An example starts at the title: 

“Improve Performance and Cost Task Scheduling Algorithm Using Gray Wolf Optimization Algorithm in Fog-Cloud Environment in IoT”

There is a confused goals inside this title, because after reading the paper a reader will conclude that the proposal is:

“Improving the Performance and Cost of Task Scheduling Algorithm Adopting the Gray Wolf Optimization Algorithm in an IoT Fog-Cloud Environment”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you for your time 

I respond all comments 

I hope will get final acceptance. 

Kind Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors considered my suggestions and made some other improvements that enhanced the quality of the article.

Nothing to add.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Easier to read than the first version, maybe a minor revision will fix the harder sentences.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments, we are doing it in the last final version paper. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This new version of the work tackles all comments that were previously mentioned. The paper is more direct and clear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is suggested a more carefully review of the English.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for comments. 

wea re improved paper in last version of the paper 

Thank you for your evolutions.