t09 reviewed t14 sai

8/8/2019 T09 Reviewed T14 SAI

1/5

First Review - Page 1 of 3

BTH-EEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement

All marks made on Pages 1 and 3 of this review will be held confidential by the Editor.A copy ofPage 2 will be sent to the author.Thank you for your help.

The reviewed paper was written by group: T09_Solsken

My recommendation is:

____ Publish without change.

____ Accept subject to the changes I have described in the accompanyingcomments. I do not need to see the revised version of the manuscript.

____ Request a revised version followed by a new review (see my accompanyingcomments).

__X__The manuscript has technical merit, but its composition and English usagedo not meet IEEE standards. Do not publish in its present form. Suggestthat the authors completely rewrite the paper and resubmit it forconsideration as a new manuscript.

____ Do not publish for the reasons detailed on Page 4.

Overall, the paper is: Award-Quality ___Excellent ___Good ___Fair __X_Poor ___

Assigned Reviewer (full name, PIN and group acronym): KASIREDDY SAI SURENKUMAR, 8807149599, T14_ prlor.

SSThank you very much for your time. Please return this review by Its Learning before October 20. The attachedpdf

document with your review should have a following name: SS_reviewed_TT_YourName where SS is an acronym of the groupwhich wrote the reviewed paper and TTyour group acronym, e.gD13_reviewed_D13_Wlodek.


2/5

First Review -Page 2 of 3

IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement

A copy of this page will be sent to the author(s).

The reviewed paper was written by group: T09_Solsken

A. Please describe the main contribution of this paper (you may agree with authors statement abouttheir contributions but you need to state it in your own words. You should point out if authorsdescription of their contribution is sufficient).

Authors have proposed a model naming HAP (High Altitude Platform) for Tsunami Monitoringsystem. They have written the code in MATLAB except this I dont find any contribution. Tosay simply they have taken two existing techniques or methods which were already proposed andused in a different application. So I feel their contribution is insufficient. Generating graphs andcomparing them is not a big deal as the conclusions are generally proposed.

B. What is the significance of the contribution that warrants the paper's inclusion in an archivaljournal such as theResearch MethodologyWorkshop Transactions?

I dont think they are doing anything new. They are just using already proposed solutions andcombining them in a different application.

C. Please provide comments regarding overall content of the paper e.g. Do the title and abstracts match the paper content?

Yes title and abstract match the paper content but abstract does not contain the specifiedinformation given in template like worthwhile problem and problem motivation.

Is the motivation of the paper clear and convincing? I did not find the motivation to be clear and convincing in the paper. Authors

mentioned that previously it is not proposed.

Does the state of the art refer to all important ideas in the subject? Yes, the state of art referred to all the ideas in the paper but I dont think they

have surveyed enough from the content of the paper and the solution they havepresented.

Does conclusion contain future work proposal? etc No the future work and conclusion were not satisfactory as it is just like repetition

of same model which they have proposed.


3/5

D. Please provide comments regarding the proposed research question, problem statement orhypothesis.

Please change the research question so that conclusion matches and looks like an answer to yourresearch question. Please check the grammar also. Hypothesis is ok for the research question butit should me modified. No clear problem statement was defined.

E. Please provide comments regarding overall technical content of the paper.Specify if the proposed solution is a new and if it has a contribution to science/engineering.Is the solution level adequate to study level of Master of Science in EE?Evaluate the proposed method of approaching the problem.

Overall technical content is good. But as a reviewer my opinion is I found the content of the

paper, it is like a repetition of four or five lines. Not so informative. It would have been better if

you have explained more about your model and simulation results and validation of your model.

Proposed solution is different as it was mentioned that the countries which cannot afford

satellites permanently can be benefitted from this model. It has contribution to

science/technology as it deals with disaster management.

Idont think the solution level is adequate for study level of Master of Science in EE but for a

small project it is ok.

Ididntget a clear idea from the content what is the problem except that this method was not

proposed previously and approach to solve was like using an already proposed solution in

another application, but the idea is good. There is clear explanations about rician fading

channel why they have considered only that. What if either tsunami sensing system or weather

station is located out of LOS proximity?

F. Please provide comments regarding quality, and writing style.Does the paper follow the IEEE template but if not, please specify what has to be improved.Please list all language and formulation doubts and propose suitable corrections. You may attachpdf file with correction made directly on the paper. Please remove your name/initials from thecomments

There are lots of corrections that need to be made I have specified each and everything inPDF with comments you can find them. Some generalized suggestions are

Key words should be in IEEE home page. References are not in IEEE format. AXES in graphs are not clear. Table and Figures Titles should be in IEEE font. Please provide more information regarding what you have done. Avoid repetition of same sentences and phrases many times in a research paper as it doesnt look

good. It would have been better if you had mentioned UPLINK and DOWNLINK Schemes instead of

LTE. Conclusion and future should be still better. There should be space after . All abbreviations should be expanded, at least important terms.


4/5

Take care of Survey of related works and references. In page 2 IEEE alignments is missing as the tables have extended into 2nd column.G. Please provide specific comments and guidance to the author which can help them to improve

their solution.

Abstract has to be improved a lot including identification of worthwhile problem.

Repeated information has to be deleted and necessary information has to be added in theintroduction.

Research question and hypothesis should be checked once again.

Follow the IEEE format.

Try to eliminate the extra spaces between words in the paper.

Better rewrite the paper with more informative content

Go through all the comments in PDF .


5/5

First Review - Page 3 of 3

IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement

Reviewer: This page will be held confidential and will not be sent to the author(s).

Please provide here specific information, comments and recommendations to the Editor, but only thesewhich should be held confidential; e.g. plagiarism etc.

NONE

t09 reviewed t14 sai

Documents