A fuzzy model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-based wireless sensor networks (WSNs)

Zhou He; Lian Chen; Feng Li; Ge Jin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286913

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 18, 2023
8 May 2023 Decision Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor PONE-D-23-11762A Fuzzy Model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-Based Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, 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 Jun 22 2023 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, Praveen Kumar Donta, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: No 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: Review Comments Manuscript Title: A Fuzzy Model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-Based Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) Summary: In this research, the authors have presented a fuzzy model for content-oriented routing (FMCCR) to solve the challenges of heterogeneous data routing in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). In the end, the authors claim that the proposed FMCCR method, in addition to increasing the network lifetime, reduces energy consumption and improves traffic load distribution. Specific Comments: The article is well structured and well written. Some corrections as follows need to be made in the article so that it can be printed in the journal: In formula )1(, we should note that the exponent of d can include the values of 2 and 4. Exponent 2 is used for propagation in free space mode and 4 is used for propagation in multi-path fading. The authors have introduced only exponent 2 in relation (1). It is suggested that in Formula (1), the distance exponent is shown as parameter n and the threshold d0 should be defined so that if the sensor range exceeds the threshold, exponent 4 is used, and if the sensor range is less than the threshold value, exponent 2 is used for the distance (d). Therefore, formula (1) should be modified as follows: (, ) = × ( + . n) If n ≤ d0 then n=2 If n > d0 then n=4 Where d_0=ε_fs/ε_(mp ) , ε_mp is transmitter amplifier parameter for multi path fading, and ε_fs is transmitter amplifier parameter for free space. In the fuzzy model, graphs of membership functions should be drawn for all inputs and output of the model. In Table 2, in order to determine the range of sensor, it is necessary to first determine the threshold value (d0) according to what was stated in paragraph 2 of the recommendations, and then determine the range based on that, because if the sensor range is lower or greater than the threshold value (d0) in the simulations, the amount of energy consumed by the sensors is greatly changed. According to recommendation number 3, the simulation results showed in Figs. 3-9 should be re-reviewed. * Reviewer #2: Authors have demonstrated the fuzzy model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-based wireless sensor networks. There are so many considerations, authors have been taken, related to the Game Theory, Content-Centric routing (CCR), fuzzy model for content-centric routing (FMCCR) etc. Moreover, written language of the paper is good, but we have some minor issues as follows: 1.Plz write abstract of paper in proper way. 2.You have to include main contribution part in introduction section. 3.Plz refer LEACH model paper in Eq.1 4.One graphical figure is required in introduction section to represent complete work flow. 5.Plz include some recent paper in related work. 6.You have to include more result analysis (proper format). 7.We got some typo errors and grammatical sentences, plz correct it 8.Conclusion section is not good; you can check grammar as well as add future works in comprehensive way. ******** 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: Yes: Mohammad Reza Ghaderi 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: review comments_PLOS 1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286913.r001
Revision 1
24 May 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: Review Comments Manuscript Title: A Fuzzy Model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-Based Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) Summary: In this research, the authors have presented a fuzzy model for content-oriented routing (FMCCR) to solve the challenges of heterogeneous data routing in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). In the end, the authors claim that the proposed FMCCR method, in addition to increasing the network lifetime, reduces energy consumption and improves traffic load distribution. Specific Comments: The article is well structured and well written. Some corrections as follows need to be made in the article so that it can be printed in the journal: In formula )1(, we should note that the exponent of d can include the values of 2 and 4. Exponent 2 is used for propagation in free space mode and 4 is used for propagation in multi-path fading. The authors have introduced only exponent 2 in relation (1). It is suggested that in Formula (1), the distance exponent is shown as parameter n and the threshold d0 should be defined so that if the sensor range exceeds the threshold, exponent 4 is used, and if the sensor range is less than the threshold value, exponent 2 is used for the distance (d). Therefore, formula (1) should be modified as follows: (, ) = × ( + . n) If n ≤ d0 then n=2 If n > d0 then n=4 Where d_0=ε_fs/ε_(mp ) , ε_mp is transmitter amplifier parameter for multi path fading, and ε_fs is transmitter amplifier parameter for free space. • The authors appreciate dear reviewer for this useful comment. Eq. (1) was edited as ordered and changes were highlighted in the manuscript. In the fuzzy model, graphs of membership functions should be drawn for all inputs and output of the model. • Graphs of the membership functions for input and output variables in the proposed FIS were illustrated in Figure 4. In Table 2, in order to determine the range of sensor, it is necessary to first determine the threshold value (d0) according to what was stated in paragraph 2 of the recommendations, and then determine the range based on that, because if the sensor range is lower or greater than the threshold value (d0) in the simulations, the amount of energy consumed by the sensors is greatly changed. According to recommendation number 3, the simulation results showed in Figs. 3-9 should be re-reviewed. • The authors appreciate dear reviewer for this constructive comment. In this research, the design of parameters in simulation experiments was done in such a way that could reflect the characteristics of heterogeneous WSNs. For this reason, the radio communication range of the sensors was determined randomly between 20 and 30 meters. The use of these values made it possible to evaluate the performance of the proposed multi-hop routing algorithm in a more accurate way. Because (considering the simulation area 2000200m) when the radio range is determined equal to the d0=87.7 threshold, a big portion of the communications are completed by a single hop, and therefore, the multi-hop routing could not be studied perfectly. Nevertheless, the simulation experiments were repeated and no noticeable change was obtained in the results. In addition, new results were added to Section 4, which are highlighted in the text of the article. ** Reviewer #2: Authors have demonstrated the fuzzy model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-based wireless sensor networks. There are so many considerations, authors have been taken, related to the Game Theory, Content-Centric routing (CCR), fuzzy model for content-centric routing (FMCCR) etc. Moreover, written language of the paper is good, but we have some minor issues as follows: 1.Plz write abstract of paper in proper way. • Thanks for this constructive comment. The Abstract section was revised and rewritten. The updated section contents were highlighted. 2.You have to include main contribution part in introduction section. • The main contributions of the paper were added and highlighted in the introduction section. 3.Plz refer LEACH model paper in Eq.1 • The reference was added to Eq.1. Also, this Eq. was edited according to advice of other reviewer. 4.One graphical figure is required in introduction section to represent complete work flow. • Thanks for this useful comment. The diagram of research workflow was added as Figure 1 in introduction section. The contents related to this case were highlighted in the manuscript. 5.Plz include some recent paper in related work. • The authors appreciate dear reviewer for this useful comment. Several new papers were studied and added to the literature review section. These papers were highlighted in section 2. 6.You have to include more result analysis (proper format). • The authors appreciate reviewer for this constructive comment. New results and analysis were added to the end of Section 4, which are highlighted in the text of the article. 7.We got some typo errors and grammatical sentences, plz correct it • The authors double-checked the manuscript for typos and grammatical errors, and fixed the observed errors. 8.Conclusion section is not good; you can check grammar as well as add future works in comprehensive way. • The conclusion section was reviewed and rewritten as dear reviewer advised. In this section, the grammatical errors were corrected. Then, the conclusions of simulation results were added. Finally, future works were added in the last paragraph of this section. These revised conclusion section was highlighted in the manuscript. ________________________________________ 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: Yes: Mohammad Reza Ghaderi Reviewer #2: No Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response-f3-plos one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286913.r002
26 May 2023 Decision Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor A Fuzzy Model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-Based Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) PONE-D-23-11762R1 Dear Dr. Chen, 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, Praveen Kumar Donta, 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 ******** 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: All suggestions are well answered and accepted. Just correct one point in the final version before printing the article, and that is in the THRESHOULD (d0) formula of the sensor board instead of the "amp" , place "mp". Explanation that what is "mp" meant by the amplification factor for the multi-path channel, while the "amp" is a general parameter that can include the amplification parameter in free space "fs" and in multi-path "mp". ****** 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: Mohammad Reza Ghaderi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286913.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor PONE-D-23-11762R1 A Fuzzy Model for content-centric routing in Zigbee-Based Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) Dear Dr. Chen: 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. Praveen Kumar Donta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286913.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 .