Leveraging Real-World Data from IoT Devices in a Fog–Cloud Architecture for Resource Optimisation within a Smart Building

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. After careful consideration, I find that your paper presents a valuable contribution to the field of IoT and Fog computing, especially in the context of smart building resource optimization. The use of real-world data in contrast to synthetic data is particularly noteworthy and addresses a critical gap in the current literature. However, before we can move towards acceptance, there are several major revisions required:

·        While your results are promising, there is a need for a more detailed explanation of your methodology, particularly how the real-world data was captured, compared, and evaluated. A clearer delineation of the methods used in both the fixed and scalable scenarios is required.

·        The improvements in energy consumption, latency, and network bandwidth usage are impressive. However, a more comprehensive analysis of these results is needed. This should include a discussion on the limitations of your study, especially considering the low device numbers in the fixed architecture and how this might affect the generalizability of your findings.

·        There is a need for a more extensive comparison with existing literature, particularly studies that have used synthetic data. This comparison will help in understanding the significance of your contribution more clearly.

·        While your study shows significant benefits in scalable scenarios, a more in-depth discussion of the scalability of your proposed architecture in various real-world settings is necessary. This should include potential challenges and how they might be addressed.

·        Your conclusion indicates a direct correlation between an increase in devices and efficiency. However, more clarification is needed on how these efficiency metrics are calculated and their implications in both fixed and scalable scenarios.

·        Lastly, the paper would benefit from a section discussing the broader implications of your findings for the field of IoT and smart buildings. Also, outline potential areas for future research building on your current work.

·        The most significant aspect of revision is the provision of your source code for review. Given the technical nature of your research, it is imperative for the validation and reproducibility of your results that the source code be made available, at least to the reviewers. This will greatly enhance the credibility and scientific rigour of your work.

 

In conclusion, your manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field. I look forward to seeing these revisions, which I believe will greatly enhance the quality and impact of your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Few corrections are required. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and comments. I have uploaded my response as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing this paper, I consider that it is a very specific and concrete investigation that, however, can have multiple derivatives.

 

This paper crosses many variables that are highly topical; On the one hand, IoT, which, as we know, is an area of solution development highly in demand by the business sector in order to offer the market increasingly powerful and usable applications; on the other hand, the Fog Cloud, derived from Cloud computing, as one of its new advances; finally two concepts that go hand in hand, Resource Optimization and Smart Building, which are the reflection of the sustainability concepts included in the SDGs of the UN Agenda 2023. Precisely in this intersection of pillars lies the originality of the paper, since the approach is integrative and systemic, allowing highly impactful global and specific conclusions to be obtained.

This is, at the same time, the largest and most important contribution compared to other thematic studies in this area.

 

The Abstract is quite clear, however for non-experts the use of terms such as iFogSim2 may be confusing, so I recommend providing greater clarity regarding the use of specific termology.

 

The Instruction is brief but sufficient in itself to detail the object and scope of the project. The literature review is also relevant and enriching, in addition the use of graphic content and tables helps its understanding, however I miss some reference to the didactic use of corporate initiatives to train future professionals, as is done for example in DOI: 10.3390/su15065324 (I recommend citing it and referring to how relevant it is to take action in university training stages to successfully develop these professional fields).

 

Sufficient in itself is the Methodology and Simulation implementation section, which allows total replicability of the experiment. Again the graphic content is of great help for understanding. From my knowledge of the subject, I do not have the capacity to suggest improvements or inconsistencies in the methodological approach of this study.

 

The Results and Discussion are well presented and sufficiently support the Conclusions. Again the graphic content is of great help for understanding. The conclusions are clearly consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and discussed. Perhaps the only gap is that it does not clearly present the limitations and assumptions of the study.

 

Little to add to the bibliography, only some reference (DOI) to the design of teaching learning activities as previously mentioned; This proposed reference, in addition to influencing this aspect, also provides the relationship of this type of studies with the SDGs of the UN Agenda 2030, which perhaps the authors could also have exploited in their planning and development. Otherwise the references are adequate to support the study.

 

Finally, reinforce the relevance of the figures and tables used, all of them valid, useful, and which greatly favor the understanding of the approach, methodology, and development of the study..

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and comments. I have uploaded my response as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are addressed by the authors. I am satisfied. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is slightly improved.

Author Response

The response Letter is attached and submitted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf