Clustering-Based Energy-Efficient Self-Healing Strategy for WSNs under Jamming Attacks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors are presented "Clustering-based Energy-Efficient Self-Healing Strategy for WSNs Under Jamming Attacks" in this manuscript. The following are some suggestions to improve this manuscript.

1. The abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection methods, sampling technique, and duration of your experiment and the results in percentage.

2. Introduction should be concise and precise. A well written, concise, and engaging introduction will give the reader an insight into your writing style, your method, and your analytical skills.

3. Related work should be the seprate section.

4. Highlight your contributions in Introduction section.

5. What are the references of equations 1, 2 and 3?

6. In line 229, 230: "IoT nodes consume energy in information acquisition and processing, reception and transmission of information, as well as other scheduling and synchronization functions", require a reference.

7. What is the difference between figure 3 (c) and 3 (D).

8. Discuss the findings in a seprate section before conclusions.

9. No any references are included from 2023. Add some references from 2023.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for his/her valuable feedback and suggestions during the peer review process. This has helped to enhance the quality of our manuscript. In the following, we respond to the observations given by Reviewer 1. Please see the attachment in Reviewer 1.pdf.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors analyzed different clustering and self-healing techniques with power allocation and cooperation capabilities in scenarios with jamming attacks. They also proposed an adaptive clustering-based self-healing algorithm, which combines power allocation, cooperation, and load-balancing to ensure efficient network operation in the presence of jamming attack. The advantages and disadvantages of each technique in jamming scenarios are given in terms of residual energy and transmitted information.

To begin with, I would like to appreciate the efforts made by the authors for their contribution. This paper is well organized and easy to follow.

Furthermore, there are some problems, which can be solved before it is considered for publication:

Firstly, the authors should give a more detailed introduction of the motivation (What is the problem, which the method in the paper is needed and how does it achieve superior performance compared to traditional methods).

Secondly, the authors should present more background information of paper so that the readers can get a better understanding of the topic. Since the paper is closely related to wireless communication, the authors are encouraged to cite more new related references such as

 “TS-ABOS-CMS: time-bounded secure attribute-based online/offline signature with constant message size for IoT systems, Journal of Systems Architecture, Volume 123, 2022,102388. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.sysarc.2021.102388.”

Thirdly, in the conclusion section, I suggest the authors to point out the future research directions which would shed lights for the readers and researchers.

At last, kindly do a proofreading to correct the errors in the text.

Overall the paper is well organized and easy to follow which can be accepted after revision.

Minor revision.

Author Response

We would like to thank  Reviewer 2 for his/her encouraging comments and suggestions during the peer review process. This has helped to enhance the quality of our manuscript. In the following, we respond to the comments given by the Reviewer 2. Please see the attachment in Reviewer 2.pdf  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed technique is interesting and novel. The considered problem and the related literature works are well described. The proposed solution is exhaustively described in detail. The performance results have been computed in a wide set of possible scenarios and situations showing the consistent improvement of the proposed technique.

Just a few points to mention:

·       The last column in Table 1 should be changed to “Scenario” in order to show which scenario each work focuses on, such as the jamming scenario considered by the authors.

·       Which kind of jamming technique has been used in the evaluation phase? It would be interesting to see if changing the kind of jammer technique among the ones mentioned in Section 2.2 could lead to different performance results.

·       Conclusions should be more short, just highlighting the proposed solution and the main achievements, and future works should be added.

·       Reference [7] is missing some information.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 3 for his/her encouraging comments and suggestions during the peer review process, which has helped to enhance the quality of our manuscript. In the following, we respond to the comments given by the Reviewer 3. Please see the attachment in Reviewer 3.pdf

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am agree to accept the revised version of this manuscript.

Minor editing of English language required