Feedback on paper of Thomas, Peytchev and Al-Dabass

FLAWS

The paper appears to be a research proposal. There is no evidence that the
system proposed has been implemented or evaluated. For instance, no
implementation details are given and there is no evaluation or results section
-- not even evidence of testing.  Also, after the list of bullets on p1, it
says:

	"As part of this platform, a traffic information system
	*will be implemented* on ad hoc networks" [my emphasis]

which implies that the system described in the paper has not yet been
implemented. The issue is confused by the fact that a system called Traffimatics
*does* appear to exist, but this paper describes an unimplemented proposal to
augment Traffimatics.  I find it surprising that an archival journal would
accept such work: not so much unfinished as barely started.

A corrollory to the non-implementation is the lack of any empirical evaluation,
which would be infeasible without an implementation.


KIND OF CONTRIBUTION

Were the system to have been implemented and evaluated, then the kind of
contribution might include "Builds a system" and "Experimental or theoretical
evidence supporting a hypothesis", but in the absence of an implementation they
don't seem appropriate. If you regard the whole proposed framework as a
technique, then "Describes a new technique" would be appropriate, but the
component sub-techniques of this framework, for instance multi-agent
communication and signal processing, are all pretty standard and don't see to
have been extended. This leaves "Combines two or more techniques" and "Describes
a new application of a technique" as the only uncontroversial kinds of
contribution of the paper.


HYPOTHESES AND THEIR EVALUATION

On p59 there is a bulleted list of criteria that are to be met if Traffimatics
Platform is to achieve its objectives. I interpret this list as a list of the
main claims, which apply both to the Traffimatics Platform and to this part of
it. I reproduce this list below with comments on the extent to which they were
evaluated. Generally, they are not explicitly discussed again, although one can
sometimes see how the proposed design is intended to achieve them.

* is cost effective"
 
 Cost effectiveness is not discussed further, although one may interpret the
 reuse of existing in-car functionality and having few external sensors as an
 attempt to achieve this. 

* "integrates seamlessly with other (ubiquitous) computing environments and emerging infrastructure"

  Integration is also not further discussed, although again one may interpret
  the re-use of existing functionality as an attempt to achieve this. 

* "adds value to the telematics end-user"

  This is not further discussed, but is implicit in the only application
  mentioned: warning of ice on the road. 

* "is self-managing requiring no driver involvement"

  This appears to be true by design. 

* "will easily evolve with technology and end-user demand"

  Maintainability is not further discussed, but is again implicit in the re-use
  of existing functionality. 

* "will provide improved traffic and road monitoring"

  The related work section does not explicitly compare the proposal with rival
  ones, although the limitations of rival approaches are sometimes pointed out. 

* "does not require any driver involvement"

  This seems to be the same point as the fourth bullet!

There is no explicit evaluation section in which these claims might be
explicitly addressed. Presumably, this is because there is no system to
evaluate, although one could relate the claims to the proposed design, in the
way I have done above.



YOUR REVIEWS

     Generally, good reviews. Here are some of my most common criticisms. 


* Many people did not appear to recognise that the proposed system had not been
  implemented. Others did recognise it, but did not give much emphasis or weight
  to it. But this seems to me to be the central criticism. The lack of an
  experimental evaluation is a consequence of the lack of an implementation, for
  instance.

* I seem to be almost alone in interpreting the bulleted list on p1 as the main
  claims being made about the proposed system. However, the prominence of this
  list: bulleted and in the introduction, seem to me to imply an importance that
  can't be overlooked. They also itemise essentially the same claims made in the
  last sentence of the abstract.

  	   "The platform can be rapidly deployed, is self organizing and
	   eliminates the need for much of the expensive infrastructure that is
	   required in existing traffic and travel information systems."

  Some of you found other, more general claims, such as this from the abstract:

  	  "By utilizing existing capabilities of vehicles, such as CAN bus and
	  the global positioning system (GPS), the vehicular ad hoc network acts
	  as an intelligent sensor and forms a powerful traffic information
	  system."

  While you would not be wrong to identify this as a potential claim, it is a
  much vaguer one and would be harder to evaluate.