Modeling Routing Overhead Generated by Wireless Proactive Routing Protocols

In this paper, we present a detailed framework consisting of modeling of routing overhead generated by three widely used proactive routing protocols; Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Fish-eye State Routing (FSR) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR). The questions like, how these protocols differ from each other on the basis of implementing different routing strategies, how neighbor estimation errors affect broadcast of route requests, how reduction of broadcast overhead achieves bandwidth, how to cope with the problem of mobility and density, etc, are attempted to respond. In all of the above mentioned situations, routing overhead and delay generated by the chosen protocols can exactly be calculated from our modeled equations. Finally, we analyze the performance of selected routing protocols using our proposed framework in NS-2 by considering different performance parameters; Route REQuest (RREQ) packet generation, End-to-End Delay (E2ED) and Normalized Routing Load (NRL) with respect to varying rates of mobility and density of nodes in the underlying wireless network

M-GEAR: Gateway-Based Energy-Aware Multi-Hop Routing Protocol for WSNs

In this research work, we advise gateway based energy-efficient routing protocol (M-GEAR) for Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). We divide the sensor nodes into four logical regions on the basis of their location in the sensing field. We install Base Station (BS) out of the sensing area and a gateway node at the centre of the sensing area. If the distance of a sensor node from BS or gateway is less than predefined distance threshold, the node uses direct communication. We divide the rest of nodes into two equal regions whose distance is beyond the threshold distance. We select cluster heads (CHs)in each region which are independent of the other region. These CHs are selected on the basis of a probability. We compare performance of our protocol with LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy). Performance analysis and compared statistic results show that our proposed protocol perform well in terms of energy consumption and network lifetime.Comment: IEEE 8th International Conference on Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA'13), Compiegne, Franc

Predatory Journals: a Literature Review

Background: Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model. Most predatory journals do not follow policies that are set forth by organizations including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver and a librarian at Auraria Library, coined the term ‘predatory journals' to describe pseudo-journals. Our literature review has highlighted that predatory journal authorship is not limited to early-career researchers only. Majority of authors are unfamiliar with practices in pseudo journals despite publishing manuscripts. Methodology: For the purpose of this review, a systematic literature search was carried in October 2019 of the following databases: (1) Web of Science (all databases), (2) ERIC, and (3) LISTA. All stages of the review process included access to the search results and full articles for review and consequent analysis. Articles were added after screening fulltext articles by meeting the inclusion criteria and meeting none of the exclusion criteria. As there were a high number of articles reporting findings on predatory journals, they were further screened re-evaluating them for any deviations from the theme of this study. Relevant material published within the last five years was used. Results: After a thorough review, 63,133 were located using the Boolean logic. After reviewing 63 abstracts and titles for relevance, 9 articles were included in the literature review. Four themes are concerned with the results of the synthesis that demarcate legitimate and predatory publications. They include factors: (1) Related to the journal, (2) Academic and professional, (3) Dissemination, and (4) Personal. Conclusion: Our literature review found that there is a lack of one single definition for predatory journals. We believe that it is essential for potential authors and young researchers to have clear guidelines and make demarcations of potential journals that seem dubious. Moreover, the authors' selection of publishers should be modified to control the risks of tainting ‘open-access' publishing with fraudulent journals. The academic and research community ought to revise their criteria and recognize high quality and author journals as opposed to ‘predatory' journals. Research mentorship, realigning research incentives, and education is vital to decrease the impact of predatory publishing in the near future