======= ACM NANOCOM 1 ======= > *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract in its PDF file and EDAS registration? Yes, the paper lists the same authors, title and abstract in its PDF file and EDAS registration. > *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper The authors focus on an issue in nano communications, precisely the effect of sensor movement in bit rate, error rate and pulse time shift. The authors back their arguments with computer simulations as well as a toy problem. The authors address an important issue and the result will definitely be helpful to calibrate the nanosensors in future. > *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper? The paper has several language flaws which make it hard to follow. Even the title is questionable. The introduction is very vague. It should be more comprehensive, especially in such a previously well investigated area. The results presented in this paper are obvious. The time shift is a direct result of Doppler effect, however it is presented as a different impact. The information capacity reduction part is also vague, and it is tightly related to error rate as well. For their toy problem, they used the blood drift velocity as the actual velocity of nanosensors, however the velocity may be much larger than the drift velocity. Moreover, velocity of a particular nanosensor at a particular time can be in any direction. The blood flow process should be examined as a Brownian motion with drift, i.e., Wiener process. The authors failed to consider this fact and took the drift velocity to calculate Doppler Shift. > *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted. The authors should be more careful with the language. Even the title needs to be checked. Introduction section should be more elaborate. The authors should focus on the relations among node movement effects. The toy problem should be reassessed. Drift velocity is not the velocity of the nanosensors and their velocities may be to any direction. > *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Acceptable (3) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Marginal work and simple contribution. Some flaws. (2) > *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3) ======= ACM NANOCOM 2 ======= > *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract in its PDF file and EDAS registration? Yes. The authors, title and abstract are the same in the PDF file and EDAS. > *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper A simple mobility model for nanonetworks is proposed. The effects of nodes movements in terms of pulse time-shift, Doppler’s effect, information rate reduction, error rate increase, and signal shape for correct detection are investigated. The results show that pulse time-shift introduces inter-symbol interference (ISI) for large data transmission. The movement speed has significant impact on the maximum information rate and on the achievable bit error rate. In this paper, the parameters for node movement is analysed using the TS-OOK modulation proposed by Jornet et al. [5]. > *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper? The paper presentation must be improved. Some formula are confusing. No consistency in formula presentation. For example: - Some long formula (e.g. (26), (27), (28)) should re-formated to be more readable. - Formula should be presented in the same consistent style: for example, in (10) "shift" on the left is in italic font but on the right is normal font (normal font is more preferable in this case) - Some formula are confusing because of use of italic font, e.g. in section 4.1 > *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted. - The addresses and affiliations of the authors must be added. - Some long formula (e.g. (26), (27), (28)) should re-formated to be more readable. - Formula should be presented in the same consistent style: for example, in (10) "shift" on the left is in italic font but on the right is normal font (normal font is more preferable in this case) - Some formula are confusing because of use of italic font, e.g. in section 4.1 > *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (4) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Valid work but limited contribution. (3) > *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3) ======= ACM NANOCOM 3 ======= > *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract in its PDF file and EDAS registration? yes > *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper The papers focuses on an interesting subject, i.e., the effects of nano-receiver movement, with constant velocity on several parameters like Doppler effects, achievable rate and etc. The simulation results are exhaustive in which effects of different parameters are investigated properly which gives good hints for designing nano-communication scenarios. > *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper? novelty is not strong, but acceptable. The paper is mainly based on references [5]-[7] where electromagnetic communication model is completely proposed and investigated. The effect of the receiver movement on the capacity is not clarified, and it should be taken care of. > *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted. The Authors state that the information rate in (23) decreases proportionally with the movement speed ‘v’. The results in Fig. 4 confirm it, however it is not clear how the receiver movements affect “C” in the integral of (22). This should be clarified. > *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Excellent (5) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Solid work of notable importance. (4) > *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Well written. (4)