Heterogeneous wireless networks with mobile devices of multiple interfaces for simultaneous connections using Fuzzy System

Jorge Amaro de Sarges Cardoso; Fabio Pereira Ferreira da Silva; Tássio Costa de Carvalho; José Jailton Henrique Ferreira Junior; Nandamudi Lankalapalli Vijaykumar; Carlos Renato Lisboa Francês

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247142

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 23, 2020
18 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Chi-Tsun Cheng, Editor PONE-D-20-29787 Heterogeneous Wireless Networks With Mobile Devices Of Multiple Interfaces For Simultaneous Connections Using Fuzzy System PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cardoso, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The literature review requires revision to include more recent and relevant work in the literature. The propsoed design and the corresponding experiment setup require further elaborations and justifications. A minor revision is recommended. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Chi-Tsun Cheng, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Eng. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.". At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” * Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The literature review requires revision to include more recent and relevant work in the literature. The propsoed design and the corresponding experiment setup require further elaborations and justifications. A minor revision is recommended. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: To obtain more bandwidth and avoid competition between user applications on the same wireless technology interface，the manuscript proposes a dual interface device to realize simultaneous use of heterogeneous wireless networks, and a Fuzzy System to select the network for handover in homogeneous network. The simulation results are abundant and interesting, but it still has some problems. 1. The references on network selection are not up to date enough. The papers on network evaluation, selection and switching is scarce and insufficient. 2. The description of Fuzzy System is not detailed enough and lacks of references. The effect on reducing unnecessary handover has not been explained clearly from simulation results. 3. In this paper, the authors have mentioned the competition of different applications on the same wireless technology interface. Using two interfaces, the competition may be eliminated when running two applications. But what about the situations running three or more applications such as voice, video and web browsing? A scheme may need to be considered and further explained in this case. 4. Some sections have grammatical mistakes and should be carefully proofread and corrected. Reviewer #2: The authors have produced a thorough investigation into the efficacy of dual interface heterogeneous access technology links for high data rate streaming, in particular for video links. The presented findings demonstrate the advantage of simultaneously connected heterogeneous access technologies in both link stability and achieving increased overall application level throughput. It is noted that a comparison is made between a traditional mobile device capable of connecting only to a single access technology and a dual connectivity device with an intelligent handover (fuzzy logic) mechanism. However, it is unclear whether the results presented in figures 5,6,7,8 are representative of average performance or over a single run of the simulation. Further to this, although performance over the course of a significant period of time is presented, the statistical distribution of performance across multiple runs hasn't been shown in the case that the behaviour of the fuzzy system in particular is varied under probabilistic wireless channel conditions. Similar concerns are expressed for figures 9,10 and 11 where 'average' performance is presented but it is not clear over how many simulations this average has been taken or whether it is the average performance over a single simulation. Likewise the distribution of these performances has not been indicated if a number of simulations have been performed. Some minor issues are: - Table 3 specifies a rate for each of the wireless access technologies in MB (Megabytes) where the interpretation of this may have been intended to be Mbps (Megabits per second). - The spelling of 'base station' in Figure 1. - There also appears to be a spelling error in Figure 12 with the spelling of traditional, possibly a mistranslation. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247142.r001
Revision 1
4 Jan 2021 Author Response Dear Editor, First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their availability and also to thank all the comments made and that we make every effort to contemplate all. We believe that after the changes made it has improved the quality of the paper. Reviewer #1: To obtain more bandwidth and avoid competition between user applications on the same wireless technology interface，the manuscript proposes a dual interface device to realize simultaneous use of heterogeneous wireless networks, and a Fuzzy System to select the network for handover in homogeneous network. The simulation results are abundant and interesting, but it still has some problems. 1. The references on network selection are not up to date enough. The papers on network evaluation, selection and switching is scarce and insufficient. R = New references were included in the related work, in particular, papers [9] e [10]. 2. The description of Fuzzy System is not detailed enough and lacks of references. The effect on reducing unnecessary handover has not been explained clearly from simulation results. R = A new Section was included for explaining Fuzzy. This should provide a better clarification on its functionalities. Also explained in details are possible answers to the systems. 3. In this paper, the authors have mentioned the competition of different applications on the same wireless technology interface. Using two interfaces, the competition may be eliminated when running two applications. But what about the situations running three or more applications such as voice, video and web browsing? A scheme may need to be considered and further explained in this case. R = A new Section on Major Contributions was included. It explains ping pong handover reduction. Besides, a Figure (and due explanations) was included to show the solution with a middleware between two interfaces. Another Figure was also added to illustrate generic signaling on double handover. 4. Some sections have grammatical mistakes and should be carefully proofread and corrected. R = A native English speaker has corrected the mistakes and reviewed the entire article again to make the necessary corrections. Reviewer #2: The authors have produced a thorough investigation into the efficacy of dual interface heterogeneous access technology links for high data rate streaming, in particular for video links. The presented findings demonstrate the advantage of simultaneously connected heterogeneous access technologies in both link stability and achieving increased overall application level throughput. It is noted that a comparison is made between a traditional mobile device capable of connecting only to a single access technology and a dual connectivity device with an intelligent handover (fuzzy logic) mechanism. 1. However, it is unclear whether the results presented in figures 5,6,7,8 are representative of average performance or over a single run of the simulation. R = The information was included in the text and in the Reference Parameter Table. 2. Further to this, although performance over the course of a significant period of time is presented, the statistical distribution of performance across multiple runs hasn't been shown in the case that the behaviour of the fuzzy system in particular is varied under probabilistic wireless channel conditions. R = In the Major Contribution Section, a text is included to explain that one of the input parameters is RSSI of the interface that detected a new Access Point. 3. Similar concerns are expressed for figures 9,10 and 11 where 'average' performance is presented but it is not clear over how many simulations this average has been taken or whether it is the average performance over a single simulation. Likewise the distribution of these performances has not been indicated if a number of simulations have been performed. R = This information was included in the text as well as in the Reference Parameters Table. 4. Some minor issues are: - Table 3 specifies a rate for each of the wireless access technologies in MB (Megabytes) where the interpretation of this may have been intended to be Mbps (Megabits per second). - The spelling of 'base station' in Figure 1. - There also appears to be a spelling error in Figure 12 with the spelling of traditional, possibly a mistranslation. R = All such minor issues were duly corrected. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Letter For Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247142.r002
2 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Chi-Tsun Cheng, Editor Heterogeneous Wireless Networks With Mobile Devices Of Multiple Interfaces For Simultaneous Connections Using Fuzzy System PONE-D-20-29787R1 Dear Dr. Cardoso, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Chi-Tsun Cheng, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Eng. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Most major issues have been resolved in the current revision. The paper is recommended to be accepted. However, the authors are highly recommended to check for typos in their final submission. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Following the comments made regarding the statistical nature of the simulations conducted and the way in which results have been presented, the authors have made changes that both clarify and increase the readability of the paper. The presentation of results now effectively demonstrates the efficacy of claims made in the discussion of said results. The inclusion of the Major Contributions describes the application scenarios that are investigated in this paper and explains both the intended system architecture and operation. A new section that describes the implemented fuzzy system also addresses concerns regarding system behaviour under probabilistic wireless channel conditions. Most minor issues have been addressed. However, there remains a misspelt title in Figure 16 where "TRADICIONAL" should read "TRADITIONAL". Similarly in Figure 1. "BASE ESTATION" should be "BASE STATION" as written in Figure 2. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247142.r003
Formally Accepted
9 Feb 2021 Acceptance Letter - Chi-Tsun Cheng, Editor PONE-D-20-29787R1 Heterogeneous Wireless Networks With Mobile Devices Of Multiple Interfaces For Simultaneous Connections Using Fuzzy System Dear Dr. Amaro de Sarges Cardoso: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Chi-Tsun Cheng Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247142.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .