Osmotic Message-Oriented Middleware for Internet of Things
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The section Introduction should clarify better and provide concise information with regard to the problem definition and scope of the paper. The contribution summarization should be remarked better.
The proposed methodology and what was found better as compared to existing ones (in the Introduction) should be highlighted.
Also, highlight the research gap in existing research and in literature. The importance of the proposed integrated approach with respect to the problem statement should have been in focus.
About the related work section, further papers should be added to the literature review. Each paper should clearly specify what is the proposed methodology, novelty and results cum experimentation. At the end of related works, highlight in some lines what overall technical gaps are observed in existing works, that led to the design of the proposed approach. The following paper should be considered: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9409962
Analysis about scalability features of the approach could be added to further improve the strength of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), and (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), and (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed and fixed all found English writing mistakes.
Author action: English proofreading is performed.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: The section Introduction should clarify better and provide concise information with regard to the problem definition and scope of the paper. The contribution summarization should be remarked better.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated Section I. Introduction adding contributions.
Author action: Section “I” is updated.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 3: highlight the research gap in existing research and in literature. The importance of the proposed integrated approach with respect to the problem statement should have been in focus.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated Section II. Background and Related Work highlighting the research existing gap.
Author action: Section “II” is updated.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 4: About the related work section, further papers should be added to the literature review. Each paper should clearly specify what is the proposed methodology, novelty and results cum experimentation. At the end of related works, highlight in some lines what overall technical gaps are observed in existing works, that led to the design of the proposed approach. The following paper should be considered: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9409962
Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added new recent related previous works.
Author action: Section “II” is updated.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 5: Analysis about scalability features of the approach could be added to further improve the strength of the paper.
Author response: While we appreciate the reviewer’s feedback, we respectfully disagree. We think that scalability is discussed and referred to as elasticity.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript considers the field of internet based learning from a federation of devices, commonly referred to as federated learning. The manuscript presents a quite detailed background on the subject introducing a number of approaches, weighing their merits and short falls. Settling on the Osmotic computing approach. The implemented middleware prototype is tested on both simulated and real-life environments to validate the architecture hypothesis of running cost-efficient, reliable end-to-end osmotic IoT ecosystem which unlocks a new implementation model for the IoT numerous domains. In general, the manuscript is well written, although in some cases acronyms are used without prior definition. The technical side, however, seems to be fine. I think the paper can be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), and (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), and (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed and fixed all found English writing mistakes.
Author action: English proofreading is performed.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: acronyms are used without prior definition.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have fixed all undefined acronyms.
Author action: Writing errors are fixed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
With great pleasure, I have read the paper that you submitted to Computers. In this paper, the author’s present osmotic message-oriented middleware to federate the dynamic orchestration process of resources across heterogeneous different types of devices belongs to physical and virtual infrastructures.
The main objective of this scientific research is to demonstrate the advances regrading osmotic computing architecture, but I would like a comparison of the experimentation with other models or proposals. In my opinion, the authors should indicate the advantages and benefits of their proposal and its deficiencies.
The experimentation is not clearly explained to be able to replicate. The inclusion of comparative tables of results would have been very helpful.
The article has several reference errors, poor quality graphics and incomplete bibliographic references. In addition, there is relevant bibliography that was not referenced.
The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the approach.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents an osmotic message-oriented middleware to federate the dynamic orchestration process of resources across heterogeneous different types of devices belongs to physical and virtual infrastructures (e.g., edge, fog and cloud layers); the orchestration process follows the osmotic computing concepts represented as self-adaptive MAPE-K model which maintains/adopts itself on the runtime through feedback loops from the provisioning engine which collects the node’s hardware and software performance matrices. The implemented middleware prototype was tested on both simulated and real-life environments to validate the architecture hypothesis of running cost efficient, reliable end-to-end osmotic IoT ecosystem which unlocks a new implementation model for the IoT numerous domains.
The paper has a good potential for being appreciated and cited, but it requires some improvements and also extension.
Comments:
The section Introduction should clarify better and provide concise information with regard to the problem definition and scope of the paper.
Also highlight the research gap in existing research and in literature. The importance of proposed integrated approach with respect to the problem statement should have been in focus. The contribution summarization should be remarked better.
In the literature review, each paper should clearly specify what is the proposed methodology, novelty and results cum experimentation. At the end of related works, highlight in some lines what overall technical gaps are observed in existing works, that led to the design of the proposed approach. Please consider the following works in the current field, they could be useful for better delineating the context and related solutions: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9409962 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950705121005037
Experimental section needs some clarifications. Provide further details.
Is it possible to consider another strategy to be compared?
Future scope of the methodology should be extended/highlighted. Improve the conclusion, clarify the conclusion of this article and its significance for follow-up research.
Minor comments: Some typos should be fixed.
