======= Review 1 ======= > *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate). In this paper authors present a methodology to rank nodes according to their deployment order. In general the paper is well written, but the contribution seems not so relevant. Here are some improvement suggestions: - Authors fail to properly motive their study - Authors compare their proposal against [14], which is more than a decade old, not citing any other works since then. This perhaps means that the topic is not relevant enough to attract attention from the research community. - In section VI, authors fail to cite which simulation tool was used for their experiments, and what was the actual wireless technology tested. Overall, by maintaining the contribution at a theoretical level, without deepening into technical details, makes the contribution minor. > *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Familiar with this area of research (3) > *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Little (4) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty. Valid work but limited contribution. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Excellent. (1) > *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Weak accept (2) ======= Review 2 ======= > *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate). The paper proposes a method with some novelty for an iterative and distributed centroid-based algorithm for node ranking in a WSN with linear topology. The authors show that their method presents some robustess in networks with low connectivity that are far real deployment. However, the design of the algorithm/protocol account for pratical considerations as reducing the number of manually configured parameters to go further in automation. Thus paper results are interesting and encouraging for real deployment. > *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Very limited expertise (4) > *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (2) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty. Valid work but limited contribution. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Well written. (2) > *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Accept (1) ======= Review 3 ======= > *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate). Well written and interesting paper, relevant and up-to-date. Some (minor) things to fix: - The description of the UDG model should be moved from the 2nd paragraph of Section IV. - Figure captions have an excessively large font. - Caption of Fig. 3 should clarify that the figure assumes \delta = 3. > *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Very limited expertise (4) > *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (2) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty. Solid work of notable importance. (2) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Well written. (2) > *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Accept (1) ======= Review 4 ======= > *** Comments to the author: Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Provide a rationale for your rating, and suggested improvements (if appropriate). The paper is related to the problem of finding the physical order of nodes’ deployment in Linear Wireless Sensor Networks. The authors propose a distributed algorithm operating iteratively using centroid-based estimation for ranking the WSN nodes in a Linear Wireless Sensor Networks. The aim is the design and evaluation of an algorithm that is operating with input information only the identifier of the first node and local node connectivity. The authors correctly arguing that node localization solutions using metrics coming from the hardware (e.g. RSSI) have major drawbacks. The authors are inspired by a similar algorithmic solution with the one they propose which in order to operate has a two-anchor nodes constraint. One of the main improvements in the proposed algorithm is that it needs as input only of the first node. The paper is well structured and organized, with clear goals, contributions and arguments. The language is comprehensible. The proposed algorithm was evaluated using extensive simulations in various network degrees of connectivity showing robustness and high quality results in node ranking. It is a clear and justified contribution. As a drawback of the paper we can consider that the results are based only in simulations and not tested in real networks, but in the conclusion authors points out that this is their next step. Also the authors could improve the description of the raking stage (in section V) with more details, relating in a more straight forward way their example with the algorithm’s description. > *** Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Working in this area of research (2) > *** Relevance to the track and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (2) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper, its scientific rigour and novelty. Solid work of notable importance. (2) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Well written. (2) > *** Overall evaluation: Please judge whether the paper should be accepted or rejected Accept (1)