Next Article in Journal
Sizing CMOS Amplifiers by PSO and MOL to Improve DC Operating Point Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Substrate Size Changes on the Coil Resistance of the Wireless Power Transfer System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Indoor Positioning for Monitoring Older Adults at Home: Wi-Fi and BLE Technologies in Real Scenarios
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Assessment of Anchors Constellation Features in RSSI-Based Indoor Positioning Systems for Smart Environments

Electronics 2020, 9(6), 1026; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9061026
by Alessandro Cidronali, Giovanni Collodi *, Matteo Lucarelli, Stefano Maddio, Marco Passafiume and Giuseppe Pelosi
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Electronics 2020, 9(6), 1026; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9061026
Submission received: 8 May 2020 / Revised: 6 June 2020 / Accepted: 13 June 2020 / Published: 21 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Indoor Localization: Technologies and Challenges)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper assesses the experimental results of the 4 anchor indoor positioning system.  My main concern is as follows.

1, There are typos. To list a few:

smart environment paradigm, [1,2]. -> paradigm [1,2].

the internet itself, [3]. ->itself [3].

The ratio behind this approach -> reason

Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)-  received signal strength indicator

low-power -> low power

the a radio-frequency transceiver -> a radio-frequency transceiver

an height -> a height

and with a dihedral angle-> and a dihedral angle

Etc.

 

2, The paper lacks comparison with state-of-art technologies. Especially when the experimental results are not too impressive considering the actual very dense localization device deployment  in a small room.

 

3, The experiment seems disconnected from the theory. The authors use the theory to demonstrate rectangular deployment should be better than the triangular one. Then the same theory can also be used to estimate the impact of changing mesh size, right? The authors should do a theoretical analysis of the impact of changing mesh size and then use experiments to validate the theory.

Author Response

Please find the reply to Review 1 in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall I am very pleased with your study. I believe it is very strong and the work is very sound.

My minor comments are:

  • I suggest you clearly define in the beginning of your article what mesh area actually is, eg, area defined by the anchor placement (for those less familiar with 802.15.4 systems and jargon)
  • I would clarify in the text why your CDF's do not reach 1
  • Labels in Figure 7 are difficult to read and the caption falls on the top of the page 10
  • On figure 8, I would add the X, Y values as a plot title or as another legend element
  • The red text on figure C is hard to read
  • On figure 11, I got a bit confused to see a Tiny line having such big localization error. While the text explains it sufficiently well, I would work out a bit the presentation on the figure, for example, grouping the mesh area lines together. 
  • On figure 11, I would prefer having shapes to help read the lines (I am color blind and it becomes hard to follow the middle lines)
  • Your method scales quite well in existing networks where localization accuracy might need to be improved in certain facility areas. 
  • It would be interesting to see some figures on the power consumption of your tags and anchor devices

 

 

Author Response

please find the reply to Reviewer 2 into the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop