Improvement of Perception Layer Routing Protocol with Static Nodes in IoT-Based Microgrids

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be improved :

1- The abstract did not describe the work done, also at the end of the introduction the description of the different sections of the paper is lack,

2- figure1 not cited in the text,

3- Some of the mathematical notations are not explained, it will be better to summarize them in a table,

4- In the literature there are a lot of works that improve LEACH protocol, present them and show what your work do differently. That let you increase the number of references more than 18,

5- Correct the formula 15 by using w1,

6- the sentence : "The algorithm flow chart of the SERP protocol is shown in Figure 3" but in the paper you described it in the figure 4,

7- describe the routing protocol HEED,

8- the analyse of the results must be more detailed

9- The conclusion is too short.

10- in overall, a proofreading of the paper will help you to improve it.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is interesting, however, some sections such as the conclusions are non-existent and must be significantly improved if it is to be published in Processes
The summary is very brief and should be expanded
The introduction is simple and includes few references. The objectives are blurred. There is no reference to the challenges for sustainable development (SDG). In addition, the introduction is point 1 and not 0 of the article.
Section 2 is very complete. However, perhaps something better can be explained to readers outside the field of research presented.
Figure 4. Expand
Table 1. Leave a space between the number and the units
Section 3 of results should be improved, discussing the results obtained and comparing them with reference to other previous investigations. Collect the implications of the job.
The conclusions do not exist. It is inconceivable in a scientific article that there are 4 lines of conclusions. So little relevant is your research? Is there nothing that can be concluded and developed? Please, increase and modify if you want to be accepted.
Some sections of the template such as conflicts of interest or contributions have been eliminated
The bibliography is not in format, add DOI

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have well improved the manuscript and responded to all the comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made all the proposed changes