Routing Protocol for MANET Based on QoS-Aware Service Composition with Dynamic Secured Broker Selection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

First of all, thank you very much for opening new window to MANET area and submitting the manuscript. However, in my opinion, there still some doubts need to be cleared before deciding about the quality of the manuscript.

Please find attached my commends list. I hope they help improving the manuscript.

Best Regards,   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Kindly find the attached response sheet.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors proposed a routing protocol for MANET based on QoS-aware service composition with a dynamic secured broker selection method.

I have the following recommendations/comments and suggestions regarding improvements for the paper. 

1. The paper is unable to justify why the authors have adopted the broker selection mechanism instead of their methods.

2. Most of the references are cited in the introduction section without any significance or reason why the authors mention them. Moreover, they are old

3. The literature review lacks mentioning the limitations. Hence I am not able to understand what kind of problem is solved by the authors

4. The paper lacks motivation for the proposed study

5. The contribution points and novelty of the research are not clear

6. A recent (papers from 2020 to 2022) literature review with limitations of the approaches should be included

7. The authors should include the research gap and the problem statement of their study.

8. In the results I cannot see a comparison with any existing approaches (recent papers) which raises the question that how the proposed approach is better or novel

9. Future directions and possible improvements are missing

10. Some more graphs/figures should be included to clarify the results

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find the attached response sheet.

Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you very much for updating the manuscript. But I still see that some of my previous comments are not addressed completely. 

Please find attached the file where I marked which comment is failed to consider perfectly. Technical comments are very important since I still doubt about applicability of your solution.

Kind regards 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Kindly find the attached response sheet.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am not satisfied with the authors answers. The authors should clearly write in the response letter that on which page the changes have been made. Moreover, the respnse letter should be in more detail. I cannot clearly figure out the changes. Regarding the comparisons which modifications have been carried out. Moreover the justification of the method for selection is not enough. 

Author Response

Please find the attached response sheet.

 

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

All of my comments have been addressed by the authors.