PONE-D-23-25645Resource-Aware Cluster-based Routing in Hybrid C-V2X/DSRC Vehicular NetworksPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shahgholi Ghahfarokhi,

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 Oct 13 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,

C. Suganthi Evangeline, B.E.,M.E.,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. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 15.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript needs to be revised before I can recommend publication in this journal. The quality of the work needs to be improved and comments have been sent to the authors in this regard. I have collected four qualified reviews by now. The reviewers raised serious concerns on the novelty and the contribution of this work. First, the related works, including the state-of-the-art clustering algorithms, are not discussed fully, making the contribution of this work not easy to define; second, the comparison between the proposed method and existing ones is insufficient, which is also criticized by the reviewer(s).

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

**********

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: As a reviewer, I read this article several times and found the topic very interesting and timely. Further, I found that this paper is well-written and organized and deals with a very interesting approach. However, below are some of the comments that I think the authors need to address before accepting the paper. The aim of this comment is to improve the quality of the paper.

• The title is informative and relevant, but it sounds not interesting. I suggest rewriting the title to be more interesting.

• The aim of the research is clear and the main article matches the abstract. However, it is not very clear what the study found. Therefore, I suggest writing the research result.

● I suggest writing the main contribution of the paper in the introduction section.

● It would be better to make a comparison table for related work and explain how the proposed research work differs from the existing one.

● The data results in Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 are relevant and presented clearly. However, it would be better to provide more analysis and discuss the results from multiple angles.

• All related and recent references should be seen. For example, the following reference is closely related and I recommend citing them:

http://ijece.iaescore.com/index.php/IJECE/article/view/24016

https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jim/article/view/26663

● The conclusion answers the aims of the study and is supported by results, but it is missing future work. Therefore, it would be better to inform future research opportunities.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the author proposes Resource aware Cluster-based Routing for C-V2X/DSRC Vehicular communication. The reviewer has several concerns as follows:

1. All abbreviations should be defined in the first place, eg., IEEE, 4G, LTE, 3GPP, UE, RSU, C-V2X..and so on.. vehicle-to-vehicle should be V2V defined in Introduction. In many places abbreviation and acronyms are missed out. The same acronym in abstract and another part of the paper should be defined in abstract and another place in the first place.

2. What are the main challenges in resource-aware cluster based routing for vehicular networks? In order to appeal to interested readers, the authors need to point out the underlying difficulties in the studied work.

3. The study found that few existing algorithms consider negative effects induced by resource management in cellular networks for c-v2x communication. How to evaluate the rationality of the designed criteria considering the kinds of factors of ineffective HO in this study?

4. In this work how to ensure that the quality requirements are satisfied?

5. To provide enough and more information about various communication technologies and brief background about VANET, the following articles are suggested to be used and cited in place of ref 1, 2 in the Introduction.

New References

[1] A two-phase fuzzy based access network selection scheme for vehicular ad hoc networks. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12083-021-01228-w)

[2] Two-phase access network selection scheme based on weighted sum and game theoretical approaches for vehicular ad hoc networks. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 30(11), 2150206. (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218126621502066)

The following article is suggested to be cited instead of reference [11]

[11]. An efficient data transmission in VANET using clustering method. International Journal of Electronics and Telecommunications. (https://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/show-content?id=106023)

6. Compared with the existing work, what are the key research gaps and contributions of this paper? The authors are suggested to clarify their contribution's specific research problem and novelty in the Introduction Section. Moreover, the reviewed related works in Section II should correspond to the research gaps. Explore the related works in more detail with 3 dimensions: Resource aware, Clustering and Routing. The related work should be re-analysed and reorganised. In related works under the theme routing, I suggest to include the below article instead of Ref. [15]

[15] A Fuzzy Based Trust And Priority Enabled AODV Routing Scheme For Vehicular Network. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH.

7. The proposed System model is vague for the reader. Including an illustrative figure for better understanding of the system scenario is highly suggested.

8. The proposed model has 3 variants (3 Algorithms). Why are they necessary? How do they stand during experimental comparison/evaluation?

9. How does the proposed resource-aware cluster based routing approach compare to existing methods in terms of performance and complexity?

10. The authors have well introduced the proposed work, however, the downside of this proposed work is not mentioned in detail. Authors should give a brief explanation related to the disadvantages of the proposed method, and also the main challenges (other than the computational complexity).

11. What do you mean by middle in [16] in Introduction section.

12. Why do you go for DBSCAN clustering mechanism when there are several other mechanisms?

13. Proper references should be provided for the equations that were borrowed from the literature.

14. There are lot of figures without much necessity or explanation in the paper, e.g., Figure 1, 2 which makes the paper less readable. Remove the above figures. The authors are suggested to draw an illustrative figure about clustering in VANET scenario in Introduction section.

15. The comparison between proposed method and traditional method in Figure 5, 6 is insufficient. What is the “traditional method” that is mentioned of? Make comparisons with existing other approaches to validate the results.

16. There remain many typos and grammatical errors. The writing of the paper needs to be improved from informal to formal way. (eg., A question may arise…), please reframe such sentences. Hence it is requested to proofread your text.

Reviewer #3: Comments:

1. It's interesting to note that DBSCAN, being a well-established clustering algorithm, has been part of the field for a while. The inclusion of re-clustering to form a new methodology adds a fresh perspective to its application. Considering your innovative approach, I wonder if there's room for exploring and producing new clustering concepts within this methodology. This could potentially push the boundaries even further and contribute to the advancement of the field such as grid based , ordering points based ,hierarchy based etc…… It will improve the Quality of ur paper.

2. The article quite informative and appreciate the coverage of the contents. However, it seems that there's a gap in the expansion of certain concepts like DRSC and LTE. Including these would provide a more comprehensive view and enhance the reader's (new) understanding.

3. The references and citations predominantly span up until the year 2015 (avoid 2007). To provide a more up-to-date context and incorporate recent advancements, I recommend considering references beyond that year. This would enhance the relevance and currentness of the article.

4. This article addresses the challenge of unbalanced load. Could you kindly provide more insight into how this is achieved through enhanced DBSCAN approach? Specifically, I'm interested in understanding the separate methodology you've developed to balance the load within networks. Elaborating on this aspect would greatly enhance the practical value of the research.

5. the manuscript shows promise in addressing load balancing, clustering, and re-clustering. To enhance clarity, consider adopting a module-wise approach. Clearly outline each module's purpose, methodologies with equations , benefits, and practical cases with suitable diagrams. This will provide readers a systematic understanding. Looking forward to the refined manuscript.

6. The manuscript has highlighted important concerns associated with frequent re-clustering, such as resource intensity, over-fitting, maintenance challenges, and lack of stability. Addressing these challenges is essential for the practical application of frequent re-clustering. Could you elaborate on potential strategies or methodologies that can be employed to overcome or mitigate these drawbacks?

7. In this article, eNodeB is not discussed except in the table. Could you provide a brief explanation of what eNodeB refers to and its importance?

Reviewer #4: The paper seems to be very timely and focuses on a topic that is very paramount as it relates to Vehicle to Everything (V2X) communication in 5G wireless networks. In V2X communications, the issue of resource availability, latency and stability have posed several challenges especially when it comes to IoVs. The topic presented is good, but this paper still suffers from major issues as given below:

1. The authors should improve on the literature review section of this manuscript. In section II, a table should be developed which compares the contributions of this work to other recent manuscripts in this field especially papers where 5G wireless networks have been used with IoVs technologies for wireless signal propagation or a similar scenario. The focus and coverage of the work, its limitations should also be included in the table.

2. The abstract needs to be re-written and some sentences needs to be rephrased. For example, this sentence needs to be rephrased “It is while the routing protocols could help redirect the load of busy BSs to neighboring BSs if those protocols were resource-aware”

”Traditional cluster-based routings do not attend the resource availability of cellular BSs in their decisions”

Please rephrase those sentences and many more so they make meaning.

3. There are many grammatical errors and incomplete sentences in the manuscript. The authors should correct those uncompleted sentences

4. In figure 1, Is this figure original or copied from somewhere? If copied, appropriate citation should be added. Same holds for Figure 2.

5. The contribution of this work needs to be well spelt out in the manuscript. List the contributions of this work at the end of the introduction in Section I.

6. The methodology section of this work need to be properly enhanced. In section III, the proposed model needs to be well developed. The authors should expand on this section and show all the stages of the model development. All variables for the model equations should be well defined and explained as it relates to this study.

7. Nowadays, the proliferation of massive wireless devices enables the transmission of sensitive user information over open communication channels. However, the security and privacy of such critical data have been worrisome. How do you guarantee the protection of sensitive data in IoVs communications? One would expect that this important aspect should be given significant consideration in the current work. What do you think?

8. In the conclusion section, a brief summary of the key findings from the work is requested. It is imperative to state the key takeaways from the work and their implications

9. List of abbreviations table should be included in this work. Some terms have been used without the authors defining those terms.

10. More authoritative references should be cited. The references need to be increased.

**********

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: Ass. Prof. Ali H. Wheeb

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ashmiya Lenin

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr.J.Naskath, Associate Professor,National Engineering College ,Kovilpati-628503,Tamil Nadu,India

Reviewer #4: 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: PLOS ONE Clustering.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments plos ONE.docx

Resource-Aware DBSCAN-based Re-Clustering in Hybrid C-V2X/DSRC Vehicular Networks

PONE-D-23-25645R1

Dear Dr. Shahgholi Ghahfarokhi,

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,

C. Suganthi Evangeline, B.E.,M.E.,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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The author has considered and addressed the provided comments, and the editor may proceed with acceptance.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********