Three-Phase Handover Management and Access Point Transition Scheme for Dynamic Load Balancing in Hybrid LiFi/WiFi Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes a three-phase handover management and access point transition to control and reduce handover rates in hybrid VLC/WiFi Networks. The topic is interesting and actual.
I have few comments:
- When the authors consider the related works, they mainly focus on indoor solutions avoiding to consider how hybrid solutions can help also outdoor, see, e.g. Vehicular visible light networks for urban mobile crowd sensing, 2018, Li-Wi: An upper layer hybrid VLC-WiFi network handover solution, 2021, Investigating the performance of a vehicular communication system based on visible light communication (VLC), 2022.
- The authors define a data rate threshold (DRT) which is represented as data rate achieved from the optical gain to identify whether users should be served by a LiFi AP or a WiFi AP. Have the authors considered that it is necessary to estimate the channel load independently on the number of users and, on that base, evaluate an handover? On the other side, the authors consider different aspects and parameters and this is the strong aspect.
- Can the authors at least discuss which would be the impact of (sun) light interference in outdoor environment?
However, in general, the paper is well presented and interesting.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your great comments. We appreciate the time you are taking for our manuscript. Please check the attached file, our point-to-point response to your comments.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have gone through the entire manuscript “Three-Phase Handover Management and Access Point Transi- 2 tion Scheme for Dynamic Load Balancing in Hybrid LiFi/WiFi 3 Networks” written by the authors. Here I would like point our many points some comments.
1. Very poor English was used for the entire manuscript. Author must do complete proof read.
2. Any manuscript, Abstract play a major role to define the proposed model. Here abstract just like information only. I could not find the purpose of the proposed model (TPHM-APT applied. Author confused the entire abstract without flow of the proposed model.
3. Figure.2 and Figure.3 is look like copy and paste from other sources. Author should ensured about this diagrams.
4. In related works sections, references were poorly cited without relating the works as well no proper sequence while pointing the reference numbers.
5. In Motivation section, Author should focus of the proposed model works important rather than discussing existing works. Since existing works were already described in section.2
6. In Table 2. Hardware specifications of the device used for the simulation and author must include the results parameters selected for this hardware configurations like node size, transmission range, bandwidth and energy etc
7. In Fig.4 author mentioned IATC,HOC and AttCC. I could not find this abbreviation and meaningful sentences about this techniques in the manuscript.
8. In equation(8). Author applied BR. What is the use of this? why we need to apply in equation(8). Similarly many parameters discussion missing in the mathematical equations.
9. Algorithm must be written as Input, Output and Process for better understanding
10. In Algorithm 1. Line number .7 Author described “Perform HO management according to Algorithm 2” . how we can refer from algorithm.1 and Why ? No clear information regarding this.
11. Figure.8 is not clear. Author must use proper tool or implementation methods.
12. In Figure.9 Y axis represent Handover probability in terms of percentage or sec. Author need to represent this in figure.
13. In figure.12 author represented a,b,c and d. Instead of representing a,b,c and d. better author could represent Fig.12 a, Fig.12.b etc.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for many comments, all of which have made big improvements to our manuscript.
Please check the attached file.
Kind Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered to all the reviewers' comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We appreciate your commitment.
For this round, we completed the spelling check and fixed all the language errors.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Author revision was satisfactory however some more corrections need to be done before considerations. Need clear modifications for the below comments.
1. Very poor English was used for the entire manuscript. Author must do complete proofread.
2. Any manuscript, Abstract play a major role to define the proposed model. Here abstract just like information only. I could not find the purpose of the proposed model (TPHM-APT applied. Author confused the entire abstract without flow of the proposed model.
3. Many parameters discussion missing in the mathematical equations. Check carefully
4. Algorithm must be written as Input, Output and Process for better understanding. Need clear information for Algorithm.2
5. In Algorithm 1. Line number .7 Author described “Perform HO management according to Algorithm 2” . how we can refer from algorithm.1 and Why ? No clear information regarding this. Since no proper flow information and description in the manuscript. Author need to describe proper pseudocode explanation about these two algorithms in the manuscript.
6. Figure.8 is not clear. Author must use proper tool or implementation methods.
7. In Figure.9 Y axis represent Handover probability in terms of percentage or sec. Author need to represent this in figure.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we have addressed all comments and completed revising the manuscript including proofreading.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
