Governance Democratic and Big Data: A Systematic Mapping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Abstract is not concrete on what study it does and why it has to be done. Author should emphasize the need of study in the selected topic.

2. For a review paper it is necessary to address the problems from the study done. Problems addressed in the review is not included in the introduction section of the paper. Don’t use short paragraphs, its very difficult to understand the research.

3. Before discussing on the privacy and transparency of big data the study should mention the impact of them on Governance in a detailed manner in the article.

4. Overall the paper does not show how the existing architecture performance from the big data framework and how it contributes to governance.

5. Fig 1: Provide the image in colour.

6. Systematic mapping of the work does not relate with the big data architecture and its application on governance. Hence the entire section makes the reader deviate from the originated topic.

7. Author has to justify the research questions studied in relation to the governance and big data along with existing characteristics.

8. Study of big data with respect to privacy and confidentiality of user concerns has to be done in detail and should specify the sensitive data need to be protected.

9. Study should mention in detail the challenges identified in the overall study and justify it with respect to the related works taken.

10. The following papers are self cited [25,26 and 28]

Moderate language changes is required. I recommend the author to proof read the paper before submission.

Author Response

1. Abstract is not concrete on what study it does and why it has to be done. Author should emphasize the need of study in the selected topic.

R. We have written the summary taking into account the reviewer's suggestions.

2. For a review paper it is necessary to address the problems from the study done. Problems addressed in the review is not included in the introduction section of the paper. Don’t use short paragraphs, its very difficult to understand the research. 

R. We have addressed the problems in the introduction section.

3. Before discussing on the privacy and transparency of big data the study should mention the impact of them on Governance in a detailed manner in the article.

R.We have addressed the impacts of privacy and transparency on governance in the introduction of the article in order to facilitate the conduct of the article.

4. Overall the paper does not show how the existing architecture performance from the big data framework and how it contributes to governance.

R. We have omitted the performance of the architecture so as not to detract from the focus and objective.

5. Fig 1: Provide the image in colour.

R: Done.

6. Systematic mapping of the work does not relate with the big data architecture and its application on governance. Hence the entire section makes the reader deviate from the originated topic.

R. Systematic mapping by definition is to get an overview of a topic, in this paper, such an overview does not focus on architecture, in the abstract, introduction section, and sections 4.1 and 4.2 we point out more than once that the aim is to identify those articles that consider discussions such as proposals for using Big Data and democratic governance. We have acceded to your suggestions above in order to clarify this point.

7. Author has to justify the research questions studied in relation to the governance and big data along with existing characteristics.

R. We hope the above modifications clarify this point, however, the motivation for the questions is indicated in Table 1. It should be noted that research questions in a systematic mapping are not justified in any section, but rather, they are questions considering the research objectives, as indicated by the methodology followed.

8. Study of big data with respect to privacy and confidentiality of user concerns has to be done in detail and should specify the sensitive data need to be protected.

R. This suggestion seems interesting, but it detracts from the focus of our research - just writing something along the lines of "specifying what sensitive data should be protected" implies a theoretical framework that is very different from the focus of this article.

9. Study should mention in detail the challenges identified in the overall study and justify it with respect to the related works taken.

R. We have justified the challenges identified in the study at the end of section 3, which emphasizes that although our work is only research, we see challenges and challenges concerning the implementation of Big Data in democratic governance in order to maximize its potential.

10. The following papers are self cited [25,26 and 28]

R. Done

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The subject is interesting and deserves the attention of the readers. I don't think the structure of the article needs to be described in the introduction. Such a practice is necessary in a thesis, not in a research article. The research hypothesis is not clearly outlined. I recommend the authors to insert it in the introduction.

The objective is presented in the introduction, but in the following chapters, I also noticed other objectives (at least that is derived from the research questions). In this case, I recommend the authors to explain the main objective of the research and the secondary objectives.

The research methods are appropriate. The results are fine. Instead of 5.2.1. Responding to research questions, I recommend the authors to create a chapter dedicated to discussions. Also, I suggest that the authors avoid attaching the research question and subsequent answer. It seems like a writing style found in a dissertation or a Ph.D. thesis. The chapter should be written in a continuous manner, not in a question-and-answer format.

Limitations of the Study

Between lines 561-564, it should be translated into English.

Pay attention to the spelling. I found a few writing errors.

Good luck!

Author Response

• The research methods are appropriate. The results are fine. Instead of 5.2.1. Responding to research questions, I recommend the authors to create a chapter dedicated to discussions. Also, I suggest that the authors avoid attaching the research question and subsequent answer. It seems like a writing style found in a dissertation or a Ph.D. thesis. The chapter should be written in a continuous manner, not in a question-and-answer format.

R. Section 5.21 aims to clarify the responses is the style used for systematic mappings.

• Limitations of the Study

Between lines 561-564, it should be translated into English.

R. Done.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a review of big data and governance democratic. The paper is well written and I only have a few comments.

1.       Have you limited the search term to title, abstract, and keywords like most authors do? Please specify in the paper.

2.       Figure 2: eliminate duplicate “jobs”, do you mean papers?

3.       Figure 8, please add a proper scale to the figure.

 

Table 1, and 2. Please translate the title into English.

Line 275, please translate into English: Estudios duplicados en diferentes bases de datos

Line 291, what is DUDE?

 

Author Response

• Have you limited the search term to title, abstract, and keywords like most authors do? Please specify in the paper.

R. The search term was limited to the title and abstract, corrected in the text.

• Figure 2: eliminate duplicate “jobs”, do you mean papers?

R. edited image

• Figure 8, please add a proper scale to the figure.

R. The color scale is described in the Image description and represents what we need to detail in this analysis. "World map considering the authors of the studied papers, the number of papers is represented in a color scale from red (1 paper) to green (the most quantity of papers)"

• Table 1, and 2. Please translate the title into English.

R. Done

• Line 275, please translate into English: Estudios duplicados en diferentes bases de datos

R. Done

• Line 291, what is DUDE?

R. In Spanish SI/NO/DUDA. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of this article is interesting. The paper is well written and the objective is presented very clearly. However, the authors may revise this article to enhance its quality by considering the following concerns:

1) The authors should provide the analysis of related works in a much more thoroughly way. Would you need to investigate the research history of these domains and compare with your current work to see whether there are already pretty decent solutions?? How your work advances others and in which way? What is potential impact? These all are crucial questions to answer.

2) The comparative analysis of different methods is inadequate, and I think it would be better to add more illustration and analysis of the comparative analysis.

3)Please extend the discussion of conclusion by incorporating issues related to the practical and theoretical implications of this research findings and a little more discussion about the future research possibility.

4)The list of references has some style problem. The style of some references is inconsistence with the format required.

5)More related references, which introduce different approaches to the similar problem, should be involved, such as

(1) “User and Entity Behavior Analysis under Urban Big Data”

(2) “An edge computing based anomaly detection method in IoT industrial sustainability”

(3) “Automatic Concept Extraction Based on Semantic Graphs From Big Data in Smart City”

(4) “A Survey on Access Control in the Age of Internet of Things”

Author Response

• The authors should provide the analysis of related works in a much more thoroughly way. Would you need to investigate the research history of these domains and compare with your current work to see whether there are already pretty decent solutions?? How your work advances others and in which way? What is potential impact? These all are crucial questions to answer.

R. some of the questions suggested by the author are answered in the related works section. An analysis is generated, clarifying the potential impact of big data on democratic governance, but also its risks. It also describes the absence of solutions oriented to democratic governance and big data and their subsequent application or implementation. Finally, it is highlighted that this review is the beginning of major challenges linked to the implementation of Big Data in democratic governance and the great impact that this could generate.

• The comparative analysis of different methods is inadequate, and I think it would be better to add more illustration and analysis of the comparative analysis.

R. We do not understand the suggestion

• The list of references has some style problem. The style of some references is inconsistence with the format required.

R. Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We appreciate your careful evaluation of our work. In response to your query about the references, we would like to clarify that the reference format adheres strictly to the template provided by MDPI for LaTeX. We have not made any modifications to the prescribed format, and therefore, if there are any issues with the references, they are associated with the template itself.

• More related references, which introduce different approaches to the similar problem, should be involved

R. We appreciate your suggestions for publications, which will undoubtedly be useful for future work focused on IoT or Smart.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Do not use short paragraphs. (Example: 4.3, 4.7 etc, similarly check section also). Every section should contain minimum 6-7 lines.

Preamble information is missing. (Example: 5 to 5.1 information is missing, similarly check section also)

I recommend the author to remove the self cited paper (28, 29 and 31).

Reference [25] link is not working, recheck it.

Author Response

The corrections are included in the attached document.
Thank you for your contributions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased that some of the recommendations have been taken on board. However I maintain my view on how to write in a discussion section.

Author Response

The corrections are included in the attached document.
Thank you for your contributions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf