Review comments from IEEE Communications letter

[Noo Dong Hee]

Hi guys,

Here are review comments of my rejected paper from IEEE Communications letter.

Hope this will be helpful for you.

Dear Author(s): 

The review of the referenced manuscript, CL2014-1717, is now complete. I regret to inform you that based on the enclosed reviews and my own reading of your manuscript, I am unable to recommend its publication in IEEE Communications Letters. 

Both reviewers have clearly indicated that the paper is poorly written. This comment applies not only to the standard of English in the paper but also to the clarity of the technical exposition; many equations and concepts are not properly explained. Also, the proposed design has not been placed in a proper relation to the related work in the literature. Finally, both reviewers have noted a lack of explanation of the role of the BCH code in the design. I agree with all of the reviewers' points. For these reasons, your paper may not be resubmitted for review. 

The reviewers' comments are found at the end of this email. 

Thank you for submitting your work to the IEEE Communications Letters. 

Regards, 
Mark Flanagan 

Editor 
IEEE Communications Letters 

Reviewer: 1 

Comments to the Author 
This manuscript presents an algorithm design for detecting faulty nodes using a Markov chain model with a three-state inference mechanism. The proposed design is evaluated with a set of simulations. The reviewer cannot recommend the acceptance of the manuscript at its current stage, for the reasons listed below. 

(1) The main design makes some sense (e.g., the state machine in Fig. 1 and the Markov-chain based probability inference), however, its connection with the BCH code is not clear. In fact, it is not covered in the design. 

(2) The background (and related work) of this paper is not clear. The presentation is not reader-friendly - some equations are not well explained. Besides, the choice of some key parameters seems ad hoc. 

(3) There are some grammar errors and writing issues. For example, "which is depends on ...", "is enhanced the reliable ...", "$\tao^{good}$ and $\tao^{warning}$ are time limit...", etc. 


Reviewer: 2 

Comments to the Author 
In my honest opinion, the letter is poorly written. 

The abstract does not clearly communicate what it should do: scenario, goal of the letter, and expected results. 

In the introduction, the scenario should be clearly introduced, e.g., what is a faulty node, what is its importance, etc. Moreover, the differences with respect to the literature should be clearly stated. 

Warning and good states are introduced without being explained. Maybe one should refer to [9], but the letter should be self-contained. 

The algorithm for faulty node detection is not clear. Where is the BCH? What has been obtained from literature and what is novel? Some of these questions need answers. 

The results are very poor and advantages with respect to the literature are questionable. A deeper analysis is needed.