Comparative Analysis of Indoor Localization across Various Wireless Technologies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
In this study, authors compared effectiveness of three indoor node localization techniques – Trilateration/Multilateration, Weighted Centroid algorithm, and Grid-based Received Signal Strength (RSS) - in wireless networking applications, allowing researchers to carefully select the most suitable localization technique for their wireless networking applications. I suggest accepting the manuscript for publication, after minor revision.
Specific comments:
For section 2 (related work), it is possible to summarize the research articles (except the review articles) into a table for comparison and make this section more readable.
For figure 1, authors should add unit for x and y axis. There is the same issue with Fig 4a and 5a. What is the unit for mean error?
Authors compared effectiveness of three indoor node localization techniques in a 2D manner. Is the conclusion the same for a 3D node localization?
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Author
This paper compares the effectiveness of three indoor node localization methods including trilateration, weighted centroid and grid based RSS In wireless networking applications. Indoor localization is an important topic and the paper provides interesting insights through different experiments. However, there are several points that need to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Suggestions to improve the quality of the paper are provided below:
1) Please remove email addresses from authors’ affiliation lines and assign the same superscription (i.e., “1”) to all authors’ since they are from the same affiliation. Only include the corresponding authors’ email address in a separate line.
2) General body of the manuscript is written clearly and organised well, and therefore very easy to follow. However, my general observation is more literature should be covered under the introduction and literature review section. Readers should understand the established papers in this domain. For example, in the first sentence of the introduction, authors’ mention the application areas of indoor localization; however, no further references were provided. Please support these areas with references and briefly elaborate well established application areas where indoor localization is popular. Some suggestions below:
- Indoor localization for healthcare: https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218119
- Indoor localization for energy management: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109472
- Indoor localization for occupancy tracking: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109689
- Indoor localization for robotics: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-013-0076-y
3) In the literature, among the technologies highlighted, one particular technology, BLE is currently very popular and important milestones has been achieved. I suggest authors’ reviewing more established papers in BLE paragraph (line 111-118). For example [https://doi.org/10.1145/2676061.2674078] proposed the first approach for a highly energy efficient indoor localization system using iBeacons, another study [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106681] proposed a scalable and low cost BLE technology without the need for a smartphone for indoor localization. Please expand BLE paragraph in the manuscript by leveraging these studies as a starting point.
4) Indoor and outdoor localization is often compared in many articles’ introduction and it is important to provide this comparison for the readers. In the first paragraph of Introduction (line 32 onwards) outdoor localization is mentioned however it is rushed. Specifically, the authors’ mentioned that GPS is a common technology used for outdoor localization, however not only the technology but also the point of interest (POI) data should be highlighted in this sentence. “For outdoor localization, through GPS, POI data is used many geospatial applications providing semantic information for places of interest and has many geospatial applications [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10110779].” Please briefly mention this with the supporting reference to provide a short overview of the outdoor localization (with GPS and POI), before going through the specifics of indoor localization techniques. Authors can also discuss the inclusion of POI data under Section 3.1 Problem Statement since more details of outdoor localization is mentioned. I will leave this to discretion of the authors.
5) Authors need to describe the real-world dataset that they used in Experiment 3 with more details. For example,
- What type of building or room do this data obtained from?
- How many sensors have been used?
- Why 4m anchor distance and 0.5m spacing between the nodes are chosen?
More details of the dataset can be added as a subsection under Experiment 3.
6) Minor comments related to writing:
- In Abstract line 20, redundant “i.e.,” which breaks the flow of the sentence. Please restructure the sentence between line 19 and 20.
- There are so many repetitions of the use of “/”. There is no need to provide synonyms of well-known words i.e., line 222 “three scenarios/test cases” or line 226 “techniques/algorithms”. These are similar terms, so to improve the coherence of the sentences please only use one of them.
- Please do not capitalise each word in the Figure captions. Only starting word will be enough.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some minor issues with the manuscript's quality of English were found and highlighted. Please review the manuscript thoroughly and address those issues.
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for taking the time to address my comments thoroughly and comprehensively. I believe most of my comments have been adequately addressed, and the quality of the manuscript has increased significantly as a result. I have determined that the manuscript is now ready for publication.
There are no major issues related to the manuscript's quality of English, except for some minor issues that do not affect the clarity and flow of the manuscript.
