PONE-D-23-33802Evaluation of the QoS Policy Model of an Ordinary 5G Smart City Cluster with Predominant URLLC and eMBB TrafficPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kovtun,

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 Dec 24 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,

Vincent Omollo Nyangaresi, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The authors are grateful to King Saud University, Saudi

Arabia for funding this work through Researchers Supporting Project number

(RSP2023R503), and also grateful to all persons and organizations that contributed

to the publication of the article."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"T. A.,

RSP2023R503,

Torki Altameem,

The funder had a role in data collection."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

1) All acronyms must be written in full the first time they are used within text

2)"...The results of the comparison testify in favour of the superiority of the author's approach..."

Give a summary of the obtained results to support the above claim.

3) Just before the "2 Materials and Methods" section, give an outline on how this paper is organized.

4)"...The focus of our study will be the process..."

Change the above to "..The focus of our study was the process..."

5) Ensure that all the presented figures are appropriately interpreted and discussed.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1- The abstract did not mention the adopted standards or their numerical values that confirm the superiority of the proposed approach over other methods.

2- Unify the format of keywords by writing them all with the first capital letter

3- In the introduction, the researcher does not explain what failures previous research has suffered from, or how the research presented here excelled in relation to them. In addition, the structure of the research was not explained in a paragraph at the end of the introduction

4- Standardize the format of references

Reviewer #2: Authors proposed efficient mathematical apparatus for evaluating the QoS. Here are some comments:

1- What is the problem to be solved and the existing challenges should be explained in the abstract.

2- The key comparison values should be mentioned in the abstract. These values show the efficiency of the proposed method.

3- In introduction, “URLLC technology is designed to support mission-critical communications with low latency, high security and reliability. Finally, eMBB technology aims to provide high data transfer rates.”, please add proof to this claim.

4- In introduction, “To a first approximation, this space can be segmented into industrial, specialized and civil clusters that require wireless communication coverage.”, What was this segmentation based on?

5- In introduction, “At the same time, typical information exchange in such a 5G cluster requires the implementation of URLLC (ensuring the information needs of critical infrastructure and institutions) and eMBB (ensuring the information needs of citizens and the service sector) technologies.”, Please add a reference to support this statement.

6- Adding a recent reference that addresses the challenges of QoS in the introduction and related work,

The “Related Work” section lacks of enough references. I strongly recommend that the author improve this section by adding references that support all the claims, the challenges of QoS, and motivation of the problem. The author may precisely and comprehensively point out the current issues and existing solutions. I suggest adding more related reference such as:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9799997

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-1653-3_9

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-19523-5_6

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9768338

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-95987-6_1

7- In introduction, “We should also pay attention to the fact that the authors formulate their models in a well-looking, but cumbersome mathematical basis “, the mathematical foundations must be mentioned.

8- The article did not address the research gap.

9- It also did not explain sufficiently how to achieve the objectives.

10- The symbols mentioned in the statement of research are not defined.

11- In statement of research, “We will ensure the balance of the QoS policy under the following conditions:”, What was relied upon in presenting these conditions?

12- In 2.2, “The proposed approach to evaluating the QoS policy of an ordinary 5G smart city cluster is accurate.”, What is the proof?

13- In 2.3, “At the same time, we take into account that URLLC connections are short-lived compared to eMBB connections”, please add reference as proof.

14- In 2.3, “After analyzing expression (12), we conclude that a stationary probability distribution of a model F states with a state space i F is identical”, the explanation must be detailed regarding identical.

15- In 2.4, What is the effect of C on QoS?

16- In 2.4, “If the inequality he u T �T � C is not fulfilled, then we proceed to Stage 3, otherwise, we proceed to Stage 4.”, why?

17- In result section, “QoS1 : C �160 , 140 u T ��, 120 he T ��, 10 u ����, 6 hu ����, 4 e ����, 3 he ����, 10 u ������, 2 e ������.”, How were these values established?

**********

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: Yes: Zaid Ameen Abduljabbar

**********

[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.

Evaluation of the QoS Policy Model of an Ordinary 5G Smart City Cluster with Predominant URLLC and eMBB Traffic

PONE-D-23-33802R1

Dear Dr. Kovtun,

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,

Vincent Omollo Nyangaresi, 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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have considered all comments and made all necessary revisions well, so I recommend accepting the article

**********

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 #2: No

**********