Deploying Efficiently Modern Applications on Cloud
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to explore efficiently modern applications on Cloud. The subject is appropriate and interesting but there are many concerns in the article that make it unsuitable for publication at its present state. The following inputs might help the author/s to improve the paper. Authors should modify the article following the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions, originality, and findings.
First of all, paper research gap. Please improve this part in the introduction section. There is insufficient support and weak arguments in support of the objective that is proposed. In the final part of the introduction, the proposed objectives, originality, and gaps that would be covered should be better justified. Also, a summary explaining how the author will perform the methodology is requested.
What is the originality of this research? Improve this paragraph, the paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of the introduction section and justified why the authors chose Delphi and MCDM modeling approaches.
Please consider this structure for the manuscript final part:
Discussion
Conclusion
Managerial Implication (this should be very interesting based on your proposed objectives)
Practical/Social Implications
Limitations and future research
Discussion should be a separated section from Results. The discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed. The authors need to contextualize the findings in the literature and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also, other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the methods used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature.
Questions to be answered: What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?
Why is this study necessary? Again, the authors should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the proposed model. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of the introduction and conclusion sections.
Please make sure your 'conclusion' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this section
I would also urge the authors to read the articles listed below before completing the manuscript revision. The author will understand that the article background and structure can be improved as well as the method development. Also, there is still a gap on the added value of your work in the context of proper and current research (up to 2021). Please consider adding new references:
Saura, J. R., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. Using data mining techniques to explore security issues in smart living environments in Twitter, Computer Communications, 2021, 179, 285-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2021.08.021
Stănciulescu, G. C., & Dumitrescu, F. (2014). Optimizing the IT structures of tourism SMEs using modern applications and resources (Cloud). Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1769-1778.
Saura, J.R., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., and Palacios-Marques, D (2021). Evaluating security and privacy issues of social networks based information systems in Industry 4.0. Enterprise Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.1913765
Wu, Q., He, K., & Chen, X. (2020). Personalized federated learning for intelligent IoT applications: A cloud-edge based framework. IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 1, 35-44.
Also, there is still a gap in the added value of your work in the context of proper and current research (up to 2021). Good luck with your revision
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
All the authors would like to thank you for your positive comments on our work and your suggestions, which have greatly improved our work's quality.
We describe below the actions taken in correspondence with your valuable indications:
- We carried out a significant revision of the entire article, correcting the critical points you highlighted.
- We have expanded the introduction to provide more background for the reader.
- We have reorganised the topics covered in the article by making two separate sections: Discussion and Results.
- We have included the citations to the papers you suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written but there are too many references in the paper.
I suggest the authors to reduce the number of references in the revised paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
All the authors would like to thank you for your positive comments on our work and for your suggestions, which have enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our work.
We revised the article and reduced the number of citations following your advice.
Reviewer 3 Report
-the introduction is too short and don't provide enough background about the studied problem. The author simply list some well known facts about deploying application in could service providers using docker. and then jump directly to the paper orgnization, without stating what is the addressed problem and how the authors plan to solve it. The introduction section must be considerably extended, state the problem background and formulation, and how your proposed solution or comparitive study will solve or study that problem.
- most of the content of related work section should be moved to introduction section, as it is introducing the background of the research rather than the literature of the studied problem.
review the related litrature, i suggest you to add the following works, as well as relevent papers:
[1]Wan, Xili, et al. "Application deployment using Microservice and Docker containers: Framework and optimization." Journal of Network and Computer Applications 119 (2018): 97-109.
[2] Guan, Xinjie, et al. "Application oriented dynamic resource allocation for data centers using docker containers." IEEE Communications Letters 21.3 (2016): 504-507.
[3] Casalicchio, Emiliano, and Stefano Iannucci. "The state‐of‐the‐art in container technologies: Application, orchestration and security." Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 32.17 (2020): e5668.
[4] Naouri, Abdenacer, et al. "A Novel Framework for Mobile-Edge Computing by Optimizing Task Offloading." IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8.16 (2021): 13065-13076.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
All the authors would like to thank you for your positive comments on our work and your suggestions, which have greatly improved our work's quality.
We describe below the actions taken in correspondence with your valuable indications:
- We carried out a significant revision of the entire article, correcting the critical points you highlighted.
- We have expanded the introduction to provide more background for the reader.
- We have accepted your valuable suggestion to move some content from the Related Works section to the Introduction section.
- We have included the citations to the papers you suggested.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have applied correctly the indicated changes. This reviewer has no additional comments. The manuscript can be accepted now.
Reviewer 3 Report
the authors have addressed my comments
