Multi-Objective Deployment of UAVs for Multi-Hop FANET: UAV-Assisted Emergency Vehicular Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors study the problem of communication recovery for trapped vehicles when the communication infrastructure is damaged. They aim to connect the trapped vehicles to base stations quickly and effectively, concerning with network topology and path optimization problems. The topic is interesting. The paper is also well organized.

The reviewer, however, has the following minor concerns,

(1)The authors apply a multi-target, multi-hop self-organizing network assisted by drones to provide emergency vehicle communication. The method proposed in the article seems to have three target points as examples. Please justify why 3 target points are used. In addition, can this method be generalized to more targets?

(2) The position of the target point for the initial path optimization is also not well explained, e.g., how to determine such position? why does authors choose Target Point 2 rather than other target points for the first path optimization?

(3)The description of Figure 1 is vague. The reviewer suggests the authors to introduce the roles and meanings for each component of the figure first before further describing the figure.

(4)How algorithm 2 works is not clear. Please add more explanations.

(5)Thorough proofreading is suggested to correct some typos and some statements which may lead to misunderstandings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please invite an English native speaker to help revise if possible. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a UAV-assisted emergency vehicular network, which efficiently connects trapped vehicles. The experiments demonstrate that its performance surpasses other state-of-the-art network methods. Here are some minor comments:

1 The optimal branching node strategy proposed by the authors repeatedly utilizes the overlapping paths of multiple objectives. When the distances between two nodes and the target point are consistent or not significantly different, the authors might consider examining how to choose a more suitable branching node more comprehensively.

2 How was the ideal position in the data obtained? Was it determined empirically or calculated based on some algorithm? The authors need to provide a detailed explanation of this process.

3 What is the range of target points in the UAV-assisted multi-objective and multihop Ad-hoc networks for emergency vehicular networks (UMMVN) proposed by the authors?

4 It is necessary to standardize and modify the format of figures and tables to enhance the clarity and aesthetic appeal of the article. For example, the legend position of scene 3 in Figure 8 could be placed in the bottom right corner.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a high quality of English language usage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this article proposed:

"Multi-objective Deployment of UAVs for Multi-hop FANET：UAV-assisted emergency vehicular network"

This article has some major concerns  outlined below that makes the paper not ready for publication by journal:

1. The paper has a major limitation  in implementation of state of the art method as it compare with  the proposed method results .

2.No experimentation is done concerning other state of the art method used in resolving the problem as proposed by its method is a major limitation, this would warrant rejecting paper outright

The are are more concerns such as :

 

3. Abstract concerns:

-sentence like “which largely decreases UAV networking’s
time cost.”-- not clear

- sentence like “secondly, it presents a simultaneously searches multi-objective trapped vehicular and navigates not clear

 

4. Therefore, there are four primary requirements for emergency network:
searching and locating trapped vehicle on complex environment, ignoring obstacles for formatting stable network, widely covering the disaster region and less deployment cost of relay node. : “How to resolve these challenges are important to address by authors” …….Lines 31, 32-33

5. Other CONCERNS:

-What vehicle the authors mean here is questionable?

-Sentence at lines 44 needs to be clarified

-How UAV relay provides security, connectivity, adaptability etc.. as its links with the BS

-Problem of the technology and what metrics needs to be resolved is unavailable

 

-A lot of dramatically constructions sentence errors in lines 47 to 53.

-A lot of error sentence construction the most places of the article.

 

 

-authors should check and define all terms in equation 7

-Some terms/info in figure 5 are wrong

-The numbering system in algorithm 2 should be separated.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English sentences construction in some aspect of the paper needs to be improved as well as grammer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have modified paper and explained about which methodologies they used to obtain their result.

2.However, authors can validate their results by showing graphical representation of the tables 1 and 2. This will confirm how they compared the two algorithms MOPSO algorithm they used NSGA2 algorithm which they confirm is a current algorithm. The table results looks like guessing and would appreciate if  validated

3.What was done between these two and used that as improvement should please be clear

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some grammatical errors correction

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript and clarified how they improved their method as compared to other state of the art method. I think what they have said make some sense. They also modified the description of their method as compered to the other sate of the art method.

However, there are few concerns that needs to be addressed before  paper is accepted by editor:

1. Demonstrate they calculated the position of RMSE,  average RMSE and Angle RMSE. Reviewer did not see any formula in paper that indicates that.

2. Reference 11 should be complete

3. A bit English editing would be fine

4. Improve adding more references where applicable

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see above comment

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx