Towards a DEVS Model Management System for Decision-Making Web Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented paper shows the approach to the generalization of DEVS-based modelling in the cloud environment. The topic is recently recognized as very promising and is studied for still rising number of problems. I consider the paper acceptable to be published in the journal, even in its current form. I would like however to suggest some small changes which could, in my opinion, improve the submission.

1. Authors refer to the decision making as an area where their solution should be applied. I think, a little more discussion on the form of problem, independently on the references 32 and 33, should be given. Authors implemented some python environment (10 years ago), but we are not quite sure about the ossue solved.

2. The second remark is related to the first one. The comparison of efficiency of the proposed approach with some good benchmark would be valuable.

3. In the references, Authors concentrate rather on technical paper, related to cloud computing. In my opinion, the presentation of some application (like, e.g.,10.1080/17477778.2022.2053311) would be also interesting for reader.

Author Response

Please find in attach the responses to the reviewer 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors proposed an approach called DEVS-MMS allows modelers, analysts, and developers to collaborate around a web-based DEVS M&S model management system with the goal of generating a set of web applications corresponding to a given DEVS simulation model and dedicated to end-users. A set of DEVS-based Web building blocks is provided in order to allow a end-user to start a simulation of a given DEVS simulation model from a web app, to populate the model through the web app, and to display the results on the web app. Although the descriptions in the text have demonstrated the feasibility of the approach, there are still some problems. The following suggestions could be of help to further improve the quality of this paper.

 

Q1: Innovation work’s motivations are not clear, e.g. why do you choose DEVS? More explanation should be provided.

 

Q2: More discussions on merits and demerits of different methods should be added in the Related Work.

 

Q3: Abstract: What is the full name of “DEVS” and “M&S”? More introduction to “DEVS” and “M&S” is needed in this section.

 

Q4: Architecture and Workflows: In Figure 2, boxes 1,2,3 are not obvious and it is not possible to find which box represents boxes 1,2,3, please add some markings to the figure.

 

Q5: On the left-hand side of Figure 3, please add more explanation as to why there is a double arrow between Simulator Database and Compiled Model Database.

 

Q6: Web-Based Discrete Event System Modeling and Simulation: In Figure 6, boxes 1,2 are not obvious and it is not possible to find which box represents boxes 1,2, please add some markings to the figure.

 

Q7: Line 438: “…in order to allow a end-user to start a simulation…” should be: “…in order to allow an end-user to start a simulation…”

Author Response

Please find in attach the responses to the reviewer 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my concern.
This paper can be accepted after a round of moderate English polish.