An Efficient Satellite Resource Cooperative Scheduling Method on Spatial Information Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper focuses the problem of collaborative scheduling of spatial information network resources. A low time complexity algorithm is proposed to realize the dynamic reconfiguration of satellite resource request queues and inter-satellite resources synergy. The global link optimization problem is solved via a max flow approach and a multi-satellite resource allocation algorithm with minimum time consumption is solved. The resource request queue is reallocated to the satellites with idle resources for processing. The performance is compared with commonly used resource scheduling baseline method in terms of performance and the time consumption of the resource scheduling process.

 

The addressed problem is quite interesting and useful, also having several open problems to be pursued in the future.

 

The main problem of the paper regards the presentation. All sections need to be fundamentally modified to improve clarity, structure and flow of the text. There are several parts that the text is garrulous and leads to confusion rather than explaining.

 

The English in the title must be improved. Currently, almost makes no sense, while the title itself is not indicative of the content of the paper.

 

The abstract should be completely re-written. It fails to motivate the problem, and present the proposed solution in an attractive and informative manner. Similarly, section 1 and 2.

 

The system model should be explained more clearly.

 

There is some overlap in the description of related work between sections 1 and 2. It is better to present the bibliography only once and in a concise manner, properly relating to the problem at hand. This will improve the flow of the text as well.

 

Figure 3 should be more self-contained. Currently, it requires studying the long accompanying text, which makes no sense, since a figure is meant to provide a shortcut to understanding, not a barrier. Similarly, for figures 4 and 5, although these two are easier to understand. Still, all notation should be self-explanatory when one studies a figure, not relying on additional long text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract authors pay big attention to the introduction of the problem. I suggest reducing the first three sentences and adding, in the end, some information about achieved results. What is more in abstract and keywords there is no mention about GE and PSO what is core of the presented research

Chapter 3 should be started with the presentation of the research methodology. The best way is to show it in the block diagram. Authors present the mathematical models (formulas marked as 1-3) but the methodology should be presented. I suggest to look how it can be done, for example in the paper: Predicting the probability of cargo theft for individual cases in railway transport, Technical Gazette, Vol. 27/No. 3; or The most common type of disruption in the supply chain - evaluation based on the method using artificial neural networks, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, Vol. 13, No. 1/2.

The list of the variables used in the formulas should be presented. I suggest adding it at the beginning of the paper.

There is the wrong link (at 9 page, before formula): “Therefore, we can transform the original model (1.1) into the following model”. I suppose authors mean model (3.1) not (1.1).

On pages 13 and 15 there is a code of algorithm. In which language was it written? It looks like pseudo-code not really like in python.

In figures the two-dimensional trajectory of a satellite is presented, how this trajectory can be presented by the mathematic equation?

How was the parameter presented in Table 2 calculated?

In figure 8, there is no axis description.

The results depend on the settings parameters, and as the authors said for PSO and GA they use default parameters, why this parameter was not changed? I suggest adding the variants for the different parameters to be sure that achieved results are proper and the RQRCS, PSO and GA can be compared.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried to revise the manuscript, but unfortunately the fundamental problems identified in the previous round, namely clarity, structure, flow and correctness of the text remain. Although the problem is interesting and quite useful, the paper still has a fundamentally problematic presentation, constituting it unsuitable for publication.

 

Some indicative examples of the remaining problems are noted in the following, but many more can be spotted across the manuscript.

 

Problems spotted till line 90.

 

Lines 1-2: First statement incomplete and grammatically wrong.

 

Lines 6-7: the statement reads that the resource request queue solves the global optimization problem (clearly mistaken bearing the wrong meaning).

 

Lines 9-11: The comparison is not against any GA or PSOA approach, as the statement reads, but against some representatives from these categories. An example of a statement with flawed content.

 

Line 36: there is no integration network – the authors probably refer to the concept of integrated network, combining different networking technologies (this is an example of inaccurate terminology employed in the paper, which needs to be carefully corrected across the text).

 

Line 40: the correction can to load is mistaken – it makes no sense at all.

 

Lines 42-43: syntactically mistaken statement.

 

Line 89: typo in the text.

 

Lines 230, 271: “Paper [….]” -> ‘Papers […..]’.

 

Line 324: the section title “Materials and Methods” is not indicative and needs modification again.

 

In table 1, the same symbol has been employed for source node satellite collection and neighborhood nodes.

 

Line 340: the modification of “indicate” to “indicates” is wrong.

 

Line 350: “there exist satellites”

 

When referring to numbered items, e.g., formulas, you need to use parentheses, e.g., in lines 350 and 354.

 

Line 385: “Under the research direction” is wrong. You need to specify in which direction. The previous wording was correct.

 

The employed symbol for slots has been modified in the text, e.g., in line 402, a different symbol is used than in the previous lines of the text.

 

Several other similar examples can be found in the rest of the manuscript and parts of the paper between the lines noted above. A thorough linguistic revision is needed, not only in terms of grammar and syntax, but also in terms of text flow and clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf