Design and Evaluation of Schemes for Replacing Multiple Member Vehicles in Vehicular Clouds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The authors address an interesting and relevant topic.

The performance analysis is adequately carried out by the authors. What are the reasons not to compare the results with the ones obtained by other methods?

The linguistic quality needs improvement. Make sure that the manuscript reads smoothly - this helps the reader fully appreciate your research findings.

 

There are problems regarding English usage. Examples:

- Line 45, “an challenging” must be replaced by “a challenging”.

- Line 55, “have been proposed schemes” must be replaced by “have proposed schemes”.

- Line 108, “related work of this paper” must be replaced by “related works”.

- Line 131: “It offers an efficient offers an efficient scheduling”.

- Line 207: avoid the inadequate use of “respectively” in line 207.

 

Regarding the caption of Figure 1, please write the meaning of (a), (b), (c) e (d).

 

In the last symbol of Table 1, belong must be replaced by belongs.

 

Regarding Equation (1), the integration is in t and the lower limit of the integral is also t?

 

Concerning Author Contributions, E.L. appears twice regarding supervision.

 

It would be nice for the readers to see future works in the section Conclusion.

 

Suggestion: avoid very long paragraphs

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors propose three schemes to replace multiple-member vehicles in vehicular clouds at three different replacement timings. They called the schemes: MIN, MAX, and AVG. It is a good paper, easy to follow, and with a detailed explanation. Presents detailed information, completed evaluations, and comparisons about that.

 

There are only a few issues to consider to improve the work:

 

1. Sometimes uses MIN, MAX, AVG, Min, Max or min, max, average to refer to the schemes... recommend using the same way.
2. Should define CMR, SMDP, VC, CID, RREP the first time they are mentioned.
3. In line 131 repeat offers and efficient offers and efficient, should delete.
4. In line 150 say L.ee, extra point.
5. In line 181, there's a point, maybe it is a coma.
6. In section 4, theres several repetitions of the words replacement/replace (5) and leaving/leaves (7), should try to improve the redaction if is possible.
7. After equation 1, --> sends the Request message..

 

Why use Manhattan Mobility Model if there are several more realistic models?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf