Comparison of Smart City Standards, Implementation and Cluster Models of Cities in North America and Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, I present my observations concerning the article

1. The theoretical introduction to the article is very modest. In the part devoted to smart city, it is worth extending the discussion of the definitions presented in Table 1. It is worth pointing the approach adopted by the Authors. The concepts of "smart city clusters" and "smart sustainable city" require a broader commentary. The relationships between smart cities and clusters require clarification. It seems that the study should clearly separate the issue of the cluster defined as a certain group of similar objects (cities), distinguished by certain features from those of a different group, from the concept of the cluster and its potential role in the development of smart cities (title of point 4.1.). It is worth supplementing the work with the issues of a broader review of research on smart cities. This would create an opportunity for discussion.
2. It seems that the assumptions and results of the study "The Sustainable Cities Index", which are used at work, require more detailed presentation. The detailed methodology of the study requires presentation. It is necessary to present which cities were studied and how (with reference to cities from North America and Europe). It seems that these issues should be indicated in the "Materials and Methods" section. The section "Materials and Methods" should be presented more clearly.
3. It would also be necessary to present more detailed results of the study "The Sustainable Cities Index". It is worth pointing out the situation of cities in North America and Europe in the entire study and conducting a comparative analysis. This approach is suggested by the title of the work. A suitable graphical / statistical illustration, e.g. in the form of tables, would be welcome. In the results of the research, European cities were only rudimentary. This makes it difficult to achieve the goals of the work.
4. The "Discussion" section contains items of research results. Research results are not sufficiently discussed. The discussion is underdeveloped. The model proposed by the authors should be firmly rooted in the presented research results.

Other remarks

1. The title of table 2 requires clarification, unambiguous naming what is included in the table.
2. The titles of tables 3 and 4 are not in line with their content, the headings need improvement.
3. Please provide specific sources in the tables and do not refer to chapters.
4. For the sake of clarity, the findings and recommendations should be listed separately in point 6; you can also indicate who these recommendations are for.
5. It would be good to clarify the following abbreviations and points: NIST (line 78), IES-City (line 82), IDC (line 172), line 49 sentence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The research is timely and worthwhile. The research problem is clearly defined. The authors provide fresh insight into the field.

I hope you find the following observations helpful:

Structure: Articles should be reformatted according to a standard structure, which is set out in the instructions for authors of the journal (sections are Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussions, Conclusion). See new template.

Results: Perhaps it is better to visualize in more charts based on statistical methods of calculation. In my opinion, it may be better to provide the results of testing these methods (if any) in the Results section.

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies.

Possibly you will need to update your reference with a published article about the smart city organization: 

1. Shakhovska N., Shakhovska K., Fedushko S. Some Aspects of the Method for Tourist Route Creation. Proceedings of the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence, Medical Engineering, Education (AIMEE2018). Advances in Artificial Systems for Medicine and Education II. Volume 902, 2019. pp 527-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12082-5_48
2. Andrukhiv, A.; Sokil, M.; Fedushko, S.; Syerov, Y.; Kalambet, Y.; Peracek, T. Methodology for Increasing the Efficiency of Dynamic Process Calculations in Elastic Elements of Complex Engineering Constructions. Electronics 2021, 10, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10010040

Overall, I find the paper adequate but it can be improved by addressing the aforementioned issues. Especially the problem of the paper structure and lack of practical results or its representation.

The paper is a review of a certain topic but the title suggests rather that it is a description of some new method. It needs to be corrected.

For the rest, congratulations to the researchers. They have carried out a magnificent study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, I appreciate the considerable effort you have put into the changes made to the article. In this version, I see opportunities to consider making the following changes:

1. The expression of the purpose in the summary and in the introduction to the article can be standardised.
2. The structure of the article should be refined. In point 1 "Introduction", point 1.1 is inserted after three pages of the text. For example, I propose to give a title to this fragment and mark it as point 1.1.
3. Isn't it worth including point 1.4. to the point "Materials and Methods"? It is worth adding to the point “Materials and Methods” information about which institution has distinguished the described types of smart cities. Also it would be important to know how many cities have been researched, including how many in the USA and Canada and how many in Europe.
4. It is not entirely clear to me what is the use of case studies at work. It appears at the beginning of the "Materials and Methods" section.
5. The separation of tables 4 and 5 is not very clear. Words not translated into English appear in these tables. Moreover, since the studied groups of cities have the same characteristics - cities can be listed in alphabetical order after the decimal point, in one line.
6. In line 278 it is possible to specify to which group the indication “these cities” refers. Also, the paragraph from line 278-283 does not seem to fit into the text. In paragraphs 341-344 - technical fault.
7. Table 9 seems unclear. The title of Table 9 does not correspond well with its content.
8. Some remarks are also raised by the model, especially the phrase "Elimination of cultural differences". What would the implementation of this postulate involve and for what purpose? It is unclear why there is an element of "Case studies" in the model. The model should weigh the implementation of management functions included in a certain cycle. It seems that the term "Management" used in the model is too broad.

Thank you

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx