PONE-D-21-15940

Provide energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sink

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tabatabaei,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ping He, Ph.D.

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: 

"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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

5. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The quality of this manuscript is terrible. Seriously hindered my judgment of the manuscript work. Please read the comments carefully, polish your manuscript in an all-round way, and then submit it again.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Partly

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Partly

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: N/A

Reviewer #7: N/A

Reviewer #8: N/A

Reviewer #9: N/A

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: No

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: No

Reviewer #10: 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: Improve on the following:

Problem statement

Theoretical background/framework

Use more studies in the literature review

PARTICULARLY, IMPLICATIONS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED. THIS IS THE WEAKEST POINT.

Reviewer #2: Suggestions for improvement:

1) The Introduction and related works need to be revised and should emphasize the challenges and corresponding techniques.

2) Proposed implementation method lacks detailed information and proper explanation.

3) Fig. 3 needs to be written as an algorithm and explained step by step.

4) Results section can be further improved. Authors are recommended to evaluate their proposed method with the latest existing and add more performance evaluation metrics too.

Reviewer #3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article describes a new algorithm is proposed that clusters sensor nodes in wireless sensor

networks using the bacterial foraging optimization algorithm to improve the energy consumption

problem.

Major comments:

It seems there is much room for improvement before the publication. I list my major comments on

the manuscript in the attached file.

Reviewer #4: The ID of the manuscript : PONE-21-15940

The title of the manuscript : Provide energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sink

Manuscript Summary :

In this work, a wireless sensor network routing algorithm is proposed. The proposed algorithm utilizes the ultra-innovative algorithm for bacterial Foraging and mobile sink, which leads to energy efficiency. In this work, two criteria are used to determine the number of sensor nodes, which are: the amount of energy on the battery surface and the distance to the sink as a head, which leads to the formation of regular clusters in the network. Within the network, nodes adopt a multi-step routing scheme to communicate with the sink. On WSNs with fixed sinks, nodes close to the sink are more likely than other nodes to share multi-step paths and focus data toward the sink and they drain their energy grid. Shutting down nodes leads to topology failure and disrupts the reporting of sensor data. To deal with this problem, the use of mobile sinks is used to be able to balance the load and help to consume uniform energy throughout the network. The proposed protocol operates in a distributed manner and can reduce energy consumption.

The manuscript is interesting; however, the following comment need to be addressed :

1 – Check the English grammar mistakes and correct them .

2 – The introduction section is a single paragraph, which makes it difficult to read. Try to divide it into several paragraphs .

3 – At the end of the introduction section, the contribution list should be included and stated clearly .

4 – In the related work section, recent algorithm need to be included such as:

[I] A. S. Al-Zubaidi, B. M. Mahmmod, S. H. Abdulhussain, and D. Al-Jumaeily, “Re-evaluation of the stable improved LEACH routing protocol for wireless sensor network,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technology - ICICT ’19, 2019, pp. 96–101.

[II] Salem, Amer O. Abu, and Noor Shudifat. "Enhanced LEACH protocol for increasing a lifetime of WSNs." Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 23.5 (2019): 901-907.

5 – The paragraphs need to be divided into several paragraph for more readability .

6 – A table need to be included at the end of the related work section. The table summarizes the algorithm in the section as well as includes the highlights and limitations of each algorithm .

7 – symbol should be included in math mode not in regular text mode .

8 – soe equation are bold and not aligned correctly . please correct them .

9 – each variable in the manuscript need to be defined clearly .

10 – Try not to use “_”, the subscript can be used.

11 – Figures 1 need to be enlarged. In addition, the text is not clear inside the blue color, try to select clear colors .

12 – Figure 3 should be replaced by algorithm style. In addition, the algorithm is not clear and not given in a professional manner .

13 – more discussion about the results should be included .

14 – missing state of the art algorithm in the comparison . Try to include some .

Reviewer #5: May limit the length of the abstract.

'Related work' chapter is vast.

BFO is poor convergence behaviour - It is required to describe with respect your problem. What is the remedy you have taken etc..

What happened if you make it your algorithm as self adaptive. Though you are not implemented it, just describe what happened if it is incorporated. (Since it is crucial parameters in SFO)

Pictorial view of your problem may be included. (this will attract more viewers)

elimination is non-uniform or uniform?

How the test run is performed?

statistical tests need to be performed to determine the stability of the algorithm and identify the best value of the parameter.

Is it this is metaheuristic?

Your algo. is seems to be Multiobjective .....energy, distance etc - justify.

What is the strategy of E.coli in your algo.

BFO has advantages, such as parallel distributed processing, insensitivity to initial value, and global optimization. How these are helping your algorithm.

Reviewer #6: This paper suggests the use of heuristic optimization to select routes of data from sensor nodes to a sink node in a WSN with the goal of improving the energy efficiency of routing.

Major concerns:

The write up and presentation of the paper are poor; sometimes very poor to the extent that the description is incomprehensible.

The validation of the work is not sound. It is based entirely on comparing simulation results with a single work that was published just this year by one of the authors ignoring all other established works and results. It is also based on a single scenario and topology with no justification of parameter selection.

There are also several questionable points about the simulation setup and evaluation criteria. For example, how can sensor nodes transfer MB sized files and why is there a test for multimedia content as found in multimedia applications (when measuring media access delay). What type of sensor nodes are we talking about?

The novelty of the work is not clear at all. To the contrary, the same ideas have been presented many times even by at least one of the authors. I have noticed a common theme in the publications by the team where a series of the same ideas are presented using various metaheuristic algorithms and always benchmarking with a single work using the same simulation setup. This adds nothing more than noise to the body of knowledge.

There is no clear justification or analysis for the use of yet another bio-inspired optimization algorithm to select the paths from sensor nodes to sink nodes or to form clusters. The modeling part is not clear and incomprehensible: the cost function and parameter selection are not well-explained and not clearly justified. Parameters are given values that seem (off-the-shelf) with no explanation. In fact, the core optimization algorithm that is described as the proposed method is listed in figure 3 as a snapshot from a printed book!

The related work section has almost no value mainly because of the poor write up and lack of analysis or at least proper description that can be understood by the reader without referring to the original work. All the listed related work and their results have been ignored later on except one paper co-authored by one of the authors and used as the sole benchmark to validate and evaluate the simulation.

Reviewer #7: 1. The authors should select better algorithms in recent paper for the comparison of results.

2. Include the references from reputed journals for the past three years

3. The author should do the simulation with various number of nodes and areas.

Reviewer #8: The manuscript proposes an algorithm based on bacterial foraging for energy efficiency in wireless sensor network routing.

The method proposed is explained in detail and the simulation results are given. The results are compared to AFSRP method and they are superior.

There are few minor problems with the manuscript: Equations 3 and 4 have to be reorganized, they are misplaced; I guess Figure 2 has missing parts and it looks as Table rather than Figure: Figure 3 could be given as Table; The numbering of sections 4.3 and 5 are wrong. Section 2 is too long it can be shortened and a table could be given to ease the follow up of the literature.

Reviewer #9: Comments to the Author

In this paper Authors have discussed about a new algorithm to improve the energy

consumption problem by forming suitable clusters in the network. They use BFOA in their work. I am presenting my critical view of the work with the hope that the authors will appreciate the angle from which I am viewing the work and I am hoping that my view would help them in strengthening their work further.

1. Abstract needs to be compact and clearly describe the work.

2. In the introduction part the WSN must be explained using suitable pictures. It is also required to describe about the cluster design by using pictures.

3. The section-2 (Related work) must be re-written. In that section authors must describe only the published previous work without comparing their work. They can use a comparison table to compare their work with these published articles in a separate place. It will increase the readability of their work.

4. Some the abbreviation used without their full name anywhere in the paper. E.g. DCRRP.

5. Reference [8] is not cited in the text.

6. Figure -3 in the current form is not acceptable.

7. Authors may use the same font throughout their paper. e.g reference [18] is written in a different font.

Reviewer #10: In the manuscript the algorithm for routing in the wireless sensor network is proposed using the ultra- innovative algorithm for bacterial Foraging and mobile sink, which leads to energy efficiency, the number of sensor nodes is determined according to two criteria: the amount of energy on the battery surface and the distance to the sink.

The paper is well written. Here are few observations.

Include a separate subsection to highlight how your work differs from the available literature.

The block diagram has to be explained.

The simulation scenario such placing of nodes should be explained.

Practical applicability of the proposed optimization set up should be explored.

How do you compare with the state of art optimization methodologies.

Are the parameters given in Table 1 chosen randomly or experimentally, if so how does the choice effects the throughput performance.

The pseudocode is poorly represented.

The pseudocode should be explained, since there is lack of cordination between the methodology section and the pseudocode.

Proper citations to the equations should be given.

The paper must be corrected for typo and grammatical errors.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: HOSAM ALRAHHAL

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes: Ahmed Al-Haiqi

Reviewer #7: Yes: Kalpana Murugan

Reviewer #8: No

Reviewer #9: Yes: Om Prakash Acharya

Reviewer #10: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments and Suggestions for Authors _PONE.pdf

PONE-D-21-15940R1Provide energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sinkPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tabatabaei,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ping He, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors did not address any of the comments raised in previous round; thus, there are remains unsolved. Give the author one last chance to revise. If the author cannot complete the revision as required, the manuscript will be rejected for publication. This will be the final decision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: 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 #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: N/A

Reviewer #7: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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 #1: The manuscript has improved and my comments are addressed particularly in terms of novelty, and purpose statement.

Reviewer #3: Minor comments:

1- The contributions and novelty of this paper are not listed in the introduction section.

2- Review the paper to be sure the font is the same for all the paper.

3- Adjust Equations1 and 2, also put their references in a suitable place. Also, for Equation 6.

4- Adjust Equations 3 and 4.

Reviewer #4: The ID of the manuscript : PONE-21-15940R1

The title of the manuscript : Provide energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sink

Manuscript Summary :

In this work, a wireless sensor network routing algorithm is proposed. The proposed algorithm utilizes the ultra-innovative algorithm for bacterial Foraging and mobile sink, which leads to energy efficiency. In this work, two criteria are used to determine the number of sensor nodes, which are: the amount of energy on the battery surface and the distance to the sink as a head, which leads to the formation of regular clusters in the network. Within the network, nodes adopt a multi-step routing scheme to communicate with the sink. On WSNs with fixed sinks, nodes close to the sink are more likely than other nodes to share multi-step paths and focus data toward the sink and they drain their energy grid. Shutting down nodes leads to topology failure and disrupts the reporting of sensor data. To deal with this problem, the use of mobile sinks is used to be able to balance the load and help to consume uniform energy throughout the network. The proposed protocol operates in a distributed manner and can reduce energy consumption.

The author misses to address the comments raised from the previous round.

The manuscript is interesting; however, the following comment need to be addressed :

1 – Check the English grammar mistakes and correct them .

2 – The introduction section is a single paragraph, which makes it difficult to read. Try to divide it into several paragraphs .

3 – At the end of the introduction section, the contribution list should be included and stated clearly .

4 – In the related work section, recent algorithm need to be included such as:

[I] A. S. Al-Zubaidi, et al. “Re-evaluation of the stable improved LEACH routing protocol for wireless sensor network,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technology - ICICT ’19, 2019, pp. 96–101.

[II] Salem, Amer O. Abu, and Noor Shudifat. "Enhanced LEACH protocol for increasing a lifetime of WSNs." Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 23.5 (2019): 901-907.

5 – The paragraphs need to be divided into several paragraph for more readability .

6 – A table need to be included at the end of the related work section. The table summarizes the algorithm in the section as well as includes the highlights and limitations of each algorithm .

7 – symbol should be included in math mode not in regular text mode .

8 – some equation are bold and not aligned correctly . please correct them .

9 – each variable in the manuscript need to be defined clearly .

10 – Try not to use “_”, the subscript can be used.

11 – Figures 1 need to be enlarged. In addition, the text is not clear inside the blue color, try to select clear colors .

12 – Figure 3 should be replaced by algorithm style. In addition, the algorithm is not clear and not given in a professional manner .

13 – more discussion about the results should be included .

14 – missing state of the art algorithm in the comparison . Try to include some .

Reviewer #5: Too lengthy abstract. too many introduction. Check with Journal policy.

Check the literature After 2019.

Introduction section may split two or three paragraphs.

Introduction must summarize the existing method's limitations. and then your highlighted contributions.

Figure 2 is similar to table?

Equations should be properly edited. (i.e) 3, 4 etc

Figure 3 should be typed version. Not In the present format.

Since the energy is major focus of your work

- Analyse should include energy vs no of nodes /Analyse should include energy vs no of sensors

- Analyse should include energy vs distance

- Analyse should include energy vs simulation time

Illustration of your work or general block diagram of your approach must be given

Reviewer #7: 1. The innovation and the motivation behind this work are clearly highlighted.

2. The manuscript technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions.

3. Methodology was clearly mentioned with appropriate technique.

4. The author changed the manuscript in response to the reviewer's suggestions.

5. The flow of the concept in an understandable manner.

6. Hence, the paper can be accepted.

**********

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 #1: Yes: Mansour Amini ( Universiti Sains Malaysia)

Reviewer #3: Yes: HOSAM ALRAHHAL

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #7: Yes: Kalpana Murugan

[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.

Provide energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sink

PONE-D-21-15940R2

Dear Dr. Tabatabaei,

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,

Chakchai So-In, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: 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 #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #1: The title needs to be revised, especially the word "provide" at the beginning of the title. Most of my previous comments have been addressed by the author.

Reviewer #3: Comments to the Author

1)I suggest thinking -optionally- about the title as "Energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sink ".

2) Equations 3, 4 are not aligned correctly.

Reviewer #4: The ID of the manuscript : PONE-21-15940 – R2

The title of the manuscript : Provide energy-aware routing protocol in wireless sensor networks using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm and mobile sink

Manuscript Summary :

In this work, a wireless sensor network routing algorithm is proposed. The proposed algorithm utilizes the ultra-innovative algorithm for bacterial Foraging and mobile sink, which leads to energy efficiency. In this work, two criteria are used to determine the number of sensor nodes, which are: the amount of energy on the battery surface and the distance to the sink as a head, which leads to the formation of regular clusters in the network. Within the network, nodes adopt a multi-step routing scheme to communicate with the sink. On WSNs with fixed sinks, nodes close to the sink are more likely than other nodes to share multi-step paths and focus data toward the sink and they drain their energy grid. Shutting down nodes leads to topology failure and disrupts the reporting of sensor data. To deal with this problem, the use of mobile sinks is used to be able to balance the load and help to consume uniform energy throughout the network. The proposed protocol operates in a distributed manner and can reduce energy consumption.

The authors have addressed all the raised comments. The manuscript can be accepted .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reviewer #5: Contributions can be highlighted.

Differences between the suggested method and existing method can be tabulated.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: HOSAM ALRAHHAL

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No