IoT-Based Smart Surveillance System for High-Security Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-The authors studied the features of the IoT-based Surveillance System for High-Security Areas (SS-HSA), such as the manageability and usability of GMS, Arduino UNO to penetrate nonmetallic obstructions. Their proposed solution utilizes machine learning AI algorithms on GMS frequency to analyze and calculate accuracy, precision, F1-Score, and Recall- Score based on the data presented in the confusion matrix.

-The following corrections are required:

Section 1: Introduction

-The introduction section is too general, and it introduces concepts that are well known about the IoT-based surveillance system for high-security areas. The introduction does not stimulate to go ahead with the remaining of the paper because it does not introduce any really new topic/solution. Furthermore, "the research motivation…” and “the main contribution….” Paragraphs at the introduction section are missing. Please rewrite this section.

-Besides, the authors describe some of works about the IoT-based surveillance system for high-security areas, while some of the papers that should have be included are:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-021-03157-1

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ett.4127

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10072509

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/spe.2641

….

-In addition, a conclusion of related work in the forms of a table in terms of evaluation tools, utilized techniques, performance metrics, and datasets, could reconcile from other researchers work to the own one.

Section 2: Materials and Methods

-Please provide a sequence diagram to show the interaction between components of the SS-HSA according to Figure 3.

-What is the overhead (time complexity) proposed solution? Please provide a subsection to discuss about the overhead (time complexity) of proposed.

 

 

 

Section 3: Results

-The evaluation is incomplete. I would like to see an evaluation on the proposed solution in terms of execution time under different scenarios.

-The evaluation lacks the minimum rigor required for the scientific comparison of stochastic algorithms. Specifically, statistical tests of the hypothesis should be used to determine whether the differences shown in the figures are statistically significant or due to chance.

-Paper needs some revision in English. The overall paper should be carefully revised with focus on the language: especially grammar and punctuation.

-Overall, there are still some major parts that the authors did not explain clearly. Some additional evaluations are expected to be in the manuscript as well. As a result, I am going to suggest Major revision the paper in its present form.

-The authors studied the features of the IoT-based Surveillance System for High-Security Areas (SS-HSA), such as the manageability and usability of GMS, Arduino UNO to penetrate nonmetallic obstructions. Their proposed solution utilizes machine learning AI algorithms on GMS frequency to analyze and calculate accuracy, precision, F1-Score, and Recall- Score based on the data presented in the confusion matrix.

-The following corrections are required:

Section 1: Introduction

-The introduction section is too general, and it introduces concepts that are well known about the IoT-based surveillance system for high-security areas. The introduction does not stimulate to go ahead with the remaining of the paper because it does not introduce any really new topic/solution. Furthermore, "the research motivation…” and “the main contribution….” Paragraphs at the introduction section are missing. Please rewrite this section.

-Besides, the authors describe some of works about the IoT-based surveillance system for high-security areas, while some of the papers that should have be included are:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-021-03157-1

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ett.4127

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10072509

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/spe.2641

….

-In addition, a conclusion of related work in the forms of a table in terms of evaluation tools, utilized techniques, performance metrics, and datasets, could reconcile from other researchers work to the own one.

Section 2: Materials and Methods

-Please provide a sequence diagram to show the interaction between components of the SS-HSA according to Figure 3.

-What is the overhead (time complexity) proposed solution? Please provide a subsection to discuss about the overhead (time complexity) of proposed.

 

 

 

Section 3: Results

-The evaluation is incomplete. I would like to see an evaluation on the proposed solution in terms of execution time under different scenarios.

-The evaluation lacks the minimum rigor required for the scientific comparison of stochastic algorithms. Specifically, statistical tests of the hypothesis should be used to determine whether the differences shown in the figures are statistically significant or due to chance.

-Paper needs some revision in English. The overall paper should be carefully revised with focus on the language: especially grammar and punctuation.

-Overall, there are still some major parts that the authors did not explain clearly. Some additional evaluations are expected to be in the manuscript as well. As a result, I am going to suggest Major revision the paper in its present form.

Author Response

the response form is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This topic is important these days with the reduction of restrictions and the spread of different applications.
The introduction is very well crafted.
Some results can be added in the future in the form of illustrated scenarios from the place of application, and this can be expanded and applied in different places, including environmental factors.
Cybersecurity can be included in the model, as can how to protect it in the future from potential attacks.
Notes have been added to the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English language was clear, understandable, and readable for all, even non-specialized readers, but it needs a simple proofread.

Author Response

the response form is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to authors for the detailed response and additions I read through the comments and skimmed the revised PDF, The updates did improve the paper a lot. I would be happy to recommend this paper for publication

 

Thanks to authors for the detailed response and additions I read through the comments and skimmed the revised PDF, The updates did improve the paper a lot. I would be happy to recommend this paper for publication