Privacy and Security Concerns in the Smart City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should be improved by emphasizing the research gaps more explicitly. Why is this methodology necessary for this area of research? What are the significant outcomes? What conclusions can be drawn based on the findings?

The introduction should make a compelling case for the utility of the study and provide a clear statement of its originality by providing pertinent information and answering fundamental questions such as, "What is already known in the open literature?" What is lacking (in terms of research)? What must be accomplished, why, and how? In addition to the abstract and conclusions, the novelty of the work should also be briefly stated in the abstract.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Having read with interest and attention the suggestions made in your review, we have firstly edited the abstract by removing some redundant parts and trying to be more specific in describing the contents of the article.

We then focused on the introduction which needed extensive revision: i) we added two new paragraphs to better describe the state of the art of the smart city privacy literature and how it could be improved by combining a pragmatic approach with a theoretical one; ii) we then better described the purpose and methodology of our research to enhance its novelty compared to other studies on the subject; and iii) several new references were added to give greater solidity to the context.

At this point, the focus shifted to the main body (sections 2-6) and the important observations on the lack of fluidity of some parts, as well as the lack of support for the arguments.

Therefore, we tried to make the text more compelling by removing or rewriting some paragraphs such as 2.1. As for the clarity and coherence of the writing, we have added new references where necessary and better contextualised some practical examples, such as the case of Venice.

In the sections pertaining to our survey (7, 9) we added a few paragraphs to offer a greater contribution in terms of commentary on the results.

Finally, the conclusion has undergone major changes that were needed to better summarise: i) the main claims and findings; ii) the limitations of the study and of the methodology involved; and iii) final suggestions derived from the article.

Hoping to have addressed your recommendations accordingly, we remain at your disposal for further clarification and improvements of the article.

Yours Sincerely,

Brian F. G. Fabrègue

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, but the in current state the work is too long and verbose to clearly identify the most relevant aspects.

Furthermore, there are various sentences that are not well supported by either external references or well argumented reasoning (e.g. lines 377-379: inventing a new technology doesn't undeniably means improving the world).

To make this work suitable for publication I would suggest to make it way shorter by focusing it on crucial aspects and presenting them in a much less biased form, keeping authors' contribution for a dedicated section(s?).
Also: all authors' claims should be better justified.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Having read with interest and attention the suggestions made in your review, we have firstly edited the abstract by removing some redundant parts and trying to be more specific in describing the contents of the article.

We then focused on the introduction which needed extensive revision: i) we added two new paragraphs to better describe the state of the art of the smart city privacy literature and how it could be improved by combining a pragmatic approach with a theoretical one; ii) we then better described the purpose and methodology of our research to enhance its novelty compared to other studies on the subject; and iii) several new references were added to give greater solidity to the context.

At this point, the focus shifted to the main body (sections 2-6) and the important observations on the lack of fluidity of some parts, as well as the lack of support for the arguments. We added references to better justify our claims and removed parts of the text that could have been considered too verbose.

Therefore, we tried to make the text more compelling by removing or rewriting some paragraphs such as 2.1. As for the clarity and coherence of the writing, we have added new references where necessary and better contextualised some practical examples, such as the case of Venice.

In the sections pertaining to our survey (7, 9) we added a few paragraphs to offer a greater contribution in terms of commentary on the results.

Finally, the conclusion has undergone major changes that were needed to better summarise: i) the main claims and findings; ii) the limitations of the study and of the methodology involved; and iii) final suggestions derived from the article.

Hoping to have addressed your recommendations accordingly, we remain at your disposal for further clarification and improvements of the article.

Yours Sincerely,

Brian F. G. Fabrègue

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Authors

·       Title: In the title of this study, the authors included “Digital City” but I couldn’t find the definition, explanation, and literature about digital city in introduction and latter part of the manuscript. I recommend the author to include the definition and literature about digital city or exclude it from title.

·       Abstract:

o   in line 4 of the Abstract, the authors mentioned “that could be improved to use on them”, what does it mean? Is it typo error or grammar mistake?

o   Line 11 says, “which can only be attained through the exchange of information”. Question raises, is information exchange the only way to attain spatial efficiency in the cities? Please explain it properly.

o   Line 17 says about “public acceptance” but the authors didn’t explain about public acceptance for what?

·       Introduction: The title of this study is “Privacy and security concerns in the smart and digital city” but the authors didn’t include any previous literature regarding security and privacy and also about information or data in smart and digital cities. Further, the authors didn’t explain why this study is important, what research gap this study aims to fill, and how it will implicate? In Line 25, it says “association stakeholders”, does it mean associated stakeholders?

·       Theory: Is there any theory that this study adopted? For example, Control theory of privacy, Limited access theory, control over information, etc.

·       In section 2.2 line 170, the authors mentioned “as one may guess, smart city technologies indeed create a number of potential privacy harms” but didn’t explain how privacy may be harmed by the use of technology?

·       Section 2.3, Dataveillance: is there any previous literature about it? Writing just two lines are not enough and especially without any solid references.

·       Conclusions:

o   What are the limitations of this study?

o   The authors used case studies conducted in Switzerland and Italy, how to generalized it?

o   What are the implications of this study? Theoretical and Practical implications

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Having read with interest and attention the suggestions made in your review, we first decided to change the title by removing the “Digital city” part, as it would have indeed taken us off topic. Otherwise, we would have needed to further explain it as the concept of achieving urban efficiency through digital innovation.

Secondly, following your precise remarks, we edited the abstract by removing some redundant parts and trying to be more specific in describing the contents of the article.

We then focused on the introduction which needed extensive revision: i) we added two new paragraphs to better describe the state of the art of the smart city privacy literature and how it could be improved by combining a pragmatic approach with a theoretical one; ii) we then better described the purpose and methodology of our research to enhance its novelty compared to other studies on the subject; and iii) several new references were added to give greater solidity to the context.

At this point, the focus shifted to the main body (sections 2-6) and the important observations on the lack of fluidity of some parts, as well as the lack of support for the arguments. We added references to better justify our claims and removed parts of the text that could have been considered too verbose.

Therefore, we tried to make the text more compelling by removing or rewriting some paragraphs such as 2.1. As for the clarity and coherence of the writing, we have added new references where necessary and better contextualised some practical examples, such as the case of Venice.

In the sections pertaining to our survey (7, 9) we added a few paragraphs to offer a greater contribution in terms of commentary on the results.

Finally, the conclusion has undergone major changes that were needed to better summarise: i) the main claims and findings; ii) the limitations of the study and of the methodology involved; and iii) final theoretical and practical implications derived from the article.

Hoping to have addressed your recommendations accordingly, we remain at your disposal for further clarification and improvements of the article.

Yours Sincerely,

Brian F. G. Fabrègue

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Current version of the manuscript looks pretty fine and publishable. The authors' efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript is appreciated. Good luck for future endeavor.