Challenges and Limitation Analysis of an IoT-Dependent System for Deployment in Smart Healthcare Using Communication Standards Features

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What's new at work? The authors need to clarify this in the text, in the various aspects that involve the use of the oxide for the intended purpose. Rhodamine degradation with UV light and using ZnO is already well known in the literature.

2. Section 5.1. Long-Range needs to be improved on references. Many statements are given without proper citation.

3. The same occurs for section 6. IoT Security.

4. Add application references for the formulas used in section 7. Analysis and Results. These formulas and other methods used can configure a separate section, with the aim of clearly informing them to the reader, with a view to verifying the results based on the presented methodology. The authors inform the methods in excerpts throughout the text as they present the related results.

5. The authors must present the conclusion section in organized paragraphs, representative of the evolution of the tests and respective results.

.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers’ Comments # Reviewer -1

 

Thanks for your helpful observation and considering our work.  The very detailed and constructive comments help us to improve the manuscript. We changed the text as per your valuable suggestions and included point-to-point response to them

1. What's new at work? The authors need to clarify this in the text, in the various aspects that involve the use of the oxide for the intended purpose. Rhodamine degradation with UV light and using ZnO is already well known in the literature.

Ans:

In our work we consider various aspect of healthcare from monitoring to analysing of different issues arises in healthcare using communication standards protocols. We primarily focus on narrowband-IoT for the sustainability of system for wide communication. Also, we suggested a new model that give strong foundation for healthcare system which is explained in Fig. 3. We also presented the scheduling process that will help to minimize the packet loss at different level of transmission. Various communication standards are also highlighted to analyse the proper power consumption for different application.

IoT based sensor relies on energy taking from zinc oxide. As, silicon dependent semiconductor are supporting modern electronic devices and metal oxide-based devices creates more opportunity for wearable senor and IoT.

2. Section 5.1. Long-Range needs to be improved on references. Many statements are given without proper citation.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

3. The same occurs for section 6. IoT Security.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript

4. Add application references for the formulas used in section 7. Analysis and Results. These formulas and other methods used can configure a separate section, with the aim of clearly informing them to the reader, with a view to verifying the results based on the presented methodology. The authors inform the methods in excerpts throughout the text as they present the related results.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript

5. The authors must present the conclusion section in organized paragraphs, representative of the evolution of the tests and respective results.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Very weak writing. The abstract is too long. The abstract should be within 250-300 words.
2. Contribution of the paper is not clear in the abstract and introduction.
3. Section 2 is incompleted and need to explain all aspect of IoT challenges in Healthcare
4. Related work should be summarised in a table to make readability of the paper.
5. Poor typesetting
6. Please provide the open issues and research challenges

7. Conclusions should be rewritten. Future works can be addressed in a different paragraph.
8. References need to update with recent up-to-date works.
Some good examples like:
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2558590
10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3236403
10.1109/JSEN.2019.2937356
10.1109/JIOT.2021.3051768
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.01.069
10.1109/JIOT.2018.2869829

1. Very weak writing. The abstract is too long. The abstract should be within 250-300 words.
2. Contribution of the paper is not clear in the abstract and introduction.
3. Section 2 is incompleted and need to explain all aspect of IoT challenges in Healthcare
4. Related work should be summarised in a table to make readability of the paper.
5. Poor typesetting
6. Please provide the open issues and research challenges

7. Conclusions should be rewritten. Future works can be addressed in a different paragraph.
8. References need to update with recent up-to-date works.
Some good examples like:
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2558590
10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3236403
10.1109/JSEN.2019.2937356
10.1109/JIOT.2021.3051768
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.01.069
10.1109/JIOT.2018.2869829

 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers’ Comments # Reviewer -2

Thanks for your helpful observation and considering our work.  The very detailed and constructive comments help us to improve the manuscript. We changed the text as per your valuable suggestions and included point-to-point response to them.

 

1. Very weak writing. The abstract is too long. The abstract should be within 250-300 words.

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

2. 
   Contribution of the paper is not clear in the abstract and introduction.

Contribution has been added in the abstract section. Please check.

3. 
   Section 2 is incompleted and need to explain all aspect of IoT challenges in Healthcare

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

4. Related work should be summarised in a table to make readability of the paper.

In table format we can only highlight its small part of contribution as our article required depth discission of related work.

5. 
   Poor typesetting

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

6. 
   Please provide the open issues and research challenges

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript. Research challenges mention in Section 2.

7. 
   Conclusions should be rewritten. Future works can be addressed in a different paragraph.

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

8. References need to update with recent up-to-date works.
   Some good examples like:
   https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2558590
   10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3236403
   10.1109/JSEN.2019.2937356
   10.1109/JIOT.2021.3051768
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.01.069
   10.1109/JIOT.2018.2869829

Added related up-to-date work in the revised version of manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The title is too long and somewhat repetitive.

2. The abstract and conclusion are too long. I suggest the author emphasize the important contents in these parts.

3. Tables in this paper should be written in a 3-wire table format.

4. The formats of the equations in this paper should be standardized and unified.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers’ Comments # Reviewer -3

Thanks for your helpful observation and considering our work.  The very detailed and constructive comments help us to improve the manuscript. We changed the text as per your valuable suggestions and included point-to-point response to them

1. The title is too long and somewhat repetitive.

Ans:

Correction has been done with short title

2. The abstract and conclusion are too long. I suggest the author emphasize the important contents in these parts.

Ans:

Ans:Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

3. Tables in this paper should be written in a 3-wire table format.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

4. The formats of the equations in this paper should be standardized and unified.

 Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

·         The abstract and conclusion are very long. Reduce the length and write them precisely.

·         What is the motivation behind the work? What are the major contributions of the work? What is the importance of this work?

·         The quality of Figure 2 is poor. Add a high-quality image.

·         Section 3 is very difficult to follow. The author should rewrite it by making a subsection.

·         Section 4, presents the summary of previous studies, followed by a few lines on the proposal, shown in Figure 3. It is not clear what is new in the proposal. How it is different from previous studies?

·         What is the motivation behind Figure 4? How is it obtained? What is the reason for placing it in section 4?

·         The equations are very poorly written. Write them in math mode. How were these equations obtained? If these equations are taken from some other paper, then cite them.

·         What is the reason for adding section 5 “Long-Short Range Communication” and section 6 “IoT Security“ in the paper? To increase the paper length.

·         In simulations, how many cells are considered? What is the IoT device density? How are these devices distributed?

·         What do 600 random samples represent in the following sentence?

“Considering the above parameters mentioned in Table 3 and Table 4 simulation was done for 599 both standalone and in-band for random 600 samples.”

·         What does the axis represent in Figure 5 and Figure 6? What are the units? A detailed explanation of graphs and Tables is missing.

·         Which tool is used for obtaining Figure 8 and Figure 9? How "Message Queuing Telemetry Transport Protocol (MQTPP)" is implemented in Matlab.

·         The author added a section on Long-short Range communication and a section on IoT Security. But the system is analyzed using an LTE network only. There is no result for short-range communication. Moreover, a detailed analysis from a security perspective is missing.  

·         There are many grammatical and writing issues. e.g.

“The outline of the IoT framework is depicted in Fig. 2. Below. In [26] author”        

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers’ Comments # Reviewer -4

Thanks for your helpful observation and considering our work.  The very detailed and constructive comments help us to improve the manuscript. We changed the text as per your valuable suggestions and included point-to-point response to them.

The abstract and conclusion are very long. Reduce the length and write them precisely.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

• What is the motivation behind the work? What are the major contributions of the work? What is the importance of this work?

Ans:

Motivation behind the work is to identify and analyse the various aspects of IoT deployment in healthcare system like monitoring, existing limitations of current model and communication standards that play an important role in sending and receiving an information. The role of protocol in network and its performance on device is also one of the major concerns.

Major contribution of the work is to analyse the narrowband IoT using different types of sensor using LTE network considering different set pf parameters.

Ans:

The importance of this work is to explore the challenges and its limitations for its deployment in healthcare system to improve its facility for different applications.

• The quality of Figure 2 is poor. Add a high-quality image.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

• Section 3 is very difficult to follow. The author should rewrite it by making a subsection.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

• Section 4, presents the summary of previous studies, followed by a few lines on the proposal, shown in Figure 3. It is not clear what is new in the proposal. How it is different from previous studies?

Ans:

Proposed model gathers all the information of body at the same time using scheduling approach. Priority based approach included in this model to deliver the data easily using communication standards which is not discussed in other existing approaches.

• What is the motivation behind Figure 4? How is it obtained? What is the reason for placing it in section 4?

Ans:

The motivation behind Fig. 4 is to highlight the performance of stated scheduling algorithm and this is obtained by taking different packet length and downturn mean for stated scheduling algorithm. The reason for placing it in section 4 is show that proposed model must follow the best suited scheduling algorithm for its data transmission for less delay.

• The equations are very poorly written. Write them in math mode. How were these equations obtained? If these equations are taken from some other paper, then cite them.

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

• What is the reason for adding section 5 “Long-Short Range Communication”and section 6 “IoT Security“ in the paper? To increase the paper length.

Ans:

The reason for adding Long-Short Range Communication in section 5 is to understand the communication standards before its implementation in our work. IoT security in section 6 is added to take some necessary action against attackers who fetch the data in unauthorized manner in sending the information at different stages.

• In simulations, how many cells are considered? What is the IoT device density? How are these devices distributed?

Ans:

Total 4 cell are considered for our work and simulations. Density depends upon the generation for our work up to 4000 devices per square kilometre (4G). Devices are distributed as per the network distance, power transmitted, GPS location etc.

• What do 600 random samples represent in the following sentence?

Ans:

600 random samples indicate the medical data heartbeat, blood pressure, body temperature etc.

“Considering the above parameters mentioned in Table 3 and Table 4 simulation was done for 599 both standalone and in-band for random 600 samples.”

Ans:

Simulation was done considering random 600 samples of different health related data not with 599 and may be possible.

• What does the axis represent in Figure 5 and Figure 6? What are the units? A detailed explanation of graphs and Tables is missing.

Ans:

X-axis represent the bit transferred per second and Y-axis represent the overhead for Fig. 5 and for Fig. 6 X-axis denotes the patients served and Y-axis denotes the throughput. Explanation has been highlighted in the manuscript.

• Which tool is used for obtaining Figure 8 and Figure 9? How "Message Queuing Telemetry Transport Protocol (MQTPP)" is implemented in Matlab.

Ans:

Matlab 2021 and Advance Excel version (2021) has been used to obtained Fig 9 and Fig 9. MQTTP will be implemented in MATLAB by using industrial communication toolbox which is used to subscribe and read message from MQTT using the following function as stated in Table 1

mqttclient	Create MQTT client connected to broker
subscribe	Subscribe to MQTT topic
read	Read available messages from MQTT
write	Write message to MQTT
unsubscribe	Unsubscribe from MQTT
peek	View most recent message from MQTT

 

• The author added a section on Long-short Range communication and a section on IoT Security. But the system is analyzed using an LTE network only. There is no result for short-range communication. Moreover, a detailed analysis from a security perspective is missing.  

Ans:

Long range communication is one form of standard used for communication and inside this various device play a role to transmit and receive a data where Sigfox and LoRa WAN play a important role for data processing and found be a promising using narrowband IoT.

Since LTE involved with long-range communication with less power consumption. So, in our work we consider only LTE network also, short range involve Bluetooth and Zigbee which contains less interference with a data capacity of 1 Mbps mention in Ref [82]. So, analysis of short-range is not so important but strongly agreed with your statement but it require some other network which may degrade the performance of long-range network. Detailed analysis of security is stated from healthcare point of view and it may increase we have highlighted the latest survey in our manuscript.

• There are many grammatical and writing issues. e.g.

“The outline of the IoT framework is depicted in Fig. 2. Below. In [26] author”        

Ans:

Correction has been done in the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version is better. But authors need to address the below comment

In the introduction and related works, please split the long paragraph into multiple paragraphs to make it easier to read.

All long paragraphs need to be broken up into multiple paragraphs throughout the paper.

 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers’ Comments # Reviewer -2

We changed the text as per your valuable suggestions and included changes in the revised manuscript.

1. In the introduction and related works, please split the long paragraph into multiple paragraphs to make it easier to read.

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

 

2. All long paragraphs need to be broken up into multiple paragraphs throughout the paper.

 

Correction has been done in the revised version of manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed all the previous round comments, to the best of my knowledge. The paper can be accepted in its current form. 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers’ Comments # Reviewer -4

The authors have addressed all the previous round comments, to the best of my knowledge. The paper can be accepted in its current form. 

Respected Sir/Mam thanks for considering and accepting our work and also thanks for your valuable comments that really helps to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf