Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this study is very interesting. The manuscript is well written. However, in order to improve the quality of the manuscript, my suggestions are given below.

1) In the introduction section please mention the benefits of your research, highlight your contribution using bullets or points and also add the motivation of your research.

2) The introduction section is very brief, you should add a diagram and explain the concept of trust in SIoT.

3) Please include the organization of the paper at the end of the introduction section.

For example; Overall, this study is organized as follows. As a reference study you can check the format for the writing of this subsection using below refrence:

F. and G. S. Choi, "Hotspots Analysis Using Cyber-Physical-Social System for a Smart City," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 122197-122209, 2020, DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3003030

4) The related work is missing. Therefore plesae add more recent studies in this section. In addition, please add a comparison table and compare the most recent studies along with advantages and disadvantages.

For the comparison table, you can check the recent study.

F.; Ahmad, A.; Sang Choi, G. Towards Trust and Friendliness Approaches in the Social Internet of Things. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9010166.

5)In simulation and results you should mention the simulation tool along with details.

6)In the conclusion section please mention the future research of your study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors proposed “A bidirectional trust model and construct an explicit approach to address the issue of service delegation based on the trust model”. The proposed work is interesting and innovative in the same time.  Overall the paper looks good and can be accepted after suggested minor revision. As reviewer of this paper, my comments are as follow:
1. This paper is well-written and easy to follow.
2. This paper provides relatively comprehensive evaluations in various metrics, especially comparing the proposed model with existing models in terms of accuracy, precision, and recall measurements.
3. I suggest the authors to check the paper as the paper is having some grammatical mistakes and typo errors.
4. Many abbreviations in the paper are referenced only once or twice, the authors are encouraged to reduce their use where possible to aid in legibility.
5. Authors should proofread entire manuscript for grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a new trust-based service delegation model in SIoT, combining a bidirectional evaluation to construct the trust model and adopt the utility optimization to formulate the service delegation problem. The scientific and technical description is very fair and sound The paper also presents some interesting results. The references are very adequate and up to date. This is clear a step ahead against other works. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper the authors propose a bidirectional trust model and build an approach to address the issue of service delegation based on the trust model. The context in which the authors propose their approach is the Social Internet of Things. The topic proposed by the authors is extremely interesting in the current scenario related to the Internet of Things and Industry 4.0. However, in my opinion, some improvements are needed to make the paper suitable for publication. - First of all, the paper is overformalized. The reader gets lost in a very long succession of formulas. It would be necessary to reduce by at least half the number of formulas expressing the same concepts in a more informal and intuitive way. Moreover, I suggest to the authors to insert a leading example that, in every step, illustrates in an immediate way what they are describing in a formal way. - In addition, authors should consider newer IoT architectures that are derived from SIoT but go beyond it. For example, they should consider the Multi-IoTs (multiple IoTs) architecture, introduced by Baldassarre et al. In this case, they should say whether and how their approach can be applied to this type of architecture. I suggest introducing MIoT architecture in the introduction and saying at the end of the introduction if their approach can be extended in the future to MIoT. - Also regarding MIoT architecture, some approaches and concepts have been proposed in past literature that are very close to the idea of trust for SIoT illustrated in this paper. For example, authors should consider "An approach to evaluate trust and reputation of things in a Multi-IoTs scenario" by Virgili et al and "An approach to compute the scope of a social object in a Multi-IoT scenario" by Cauteruccio et al. Authors should insert a "Discussion" section before the conclusions describing briefly these approaches and highlighting similarities and differences between them and their approach. - The paper contains several typos and formatting errors. Authors should carefully proofread it to remove such errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The contribution of the study is well presented, however, there are several important points to consider in order to improve the paper.

The introduction should contain a brief description of the paper structure, providing the reader with references to Sections with a brief overview of their content.

"As the third industrial revolution " - the authors are invited to reconsider this, i.e. 3rd revolution?

Statements such as "With the continuous intelligence of hardware18devices and the maturity of edge computing technology, IoT will have greater scalability." should be supplied with evidence from the literature to support this.

"In SIoT, each object (e.g. intelligent sensors, smartphone, video camera, etc.) can be29a service requester (SR) or service provider (SP) according to its own motivations" - the authors are invited to clearly emphasize the difference between IoT and SIoT since the statement above seems to be valid for IoT as well. For this purpose, the authors can find useful the following references, where the first refers to SIoT, while the second - to well defined IoT concept:

Nitti et al. (2013). Trustworthiness management in the social internet of things. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 26(5), 1253-1266.

Azeroual et al. (2022). A Record Linkage-Based Data Deduplication Framework with DataCleaner Extension. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(4), 27.

This should also be done for other concepts, which are central objects for the study and should be clearly understood by the reader.

Two mandatory sections are missing - Related Works, i.e. there is no section devoted to the state of the art, which does not allow to draw a conclusion on the current state and the benefits of the proposal in the light of the existing knowledge.

Another missing section is Limitations and Future works.

Discussion of the proposal should be established and conclusions extended.

All in all, the study is of potential interest for the readership but it is crucial to make it more scientifically soundy, mainly referring to considering the typical structure of the paper and the study.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors has incoporated all necessary changes to the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks reviewer's comment. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The new version of the paper has been improved taking into account my suggestions. So, from my viewpoint, the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Thanks reviewer's comment. 

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have manged to improve the paper significantly. All the comments were taken into account or the explanation was provided, which I find to be sufficient.

The only thing is that by ""As the third industrial revolution " - the authors are invited to reconsider this, i.e. 3rd revolution?" I was meaning not the dissatisfaction of the notion, which the authors used but the order number of the revolution. Typically 4th industrial revolution is a subject not the 3rd.

 

Otherwise, the paper is well-written and is ready for the publication!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf