IoT-Based Motorbike Ambulance: Secure and Efficient Transportation
, Marwan Kadhim Mohammed Al-shammari 1,†, Gehad Abdullah Amran 3,4,†, Khaled H. Mutmbak 5, Khaled H. Al-harbi 5 and Mohammed A. A. Al-qaness 6,7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The topic of the article is very interesting and the need for such systems will grow. It also looks like a real prototype has been built or laboratory testing has taken place. These are big positives. There is a small improvement in comparison of previous version. But unfortunately, the article is still quite hard to read.
Comments and suggestion:
1. The introduction consists of a very long text that has no paragraphs or subdivisions. It is practically impossible to keep attention while reading. This was not corrrected.
2. Figure 6 is very small. Figure 7 and 8, etc. are deformed.
3. Better present the main idea of the article in conclusion. Now it is very short. Conclude with the main results and scientific contributions in bullet points.
Author Response
Dear Dr
The point to point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:
Point 1: The introduction consists of a very long text that has no paragraphs or subdivisions. It is
practically impossible to keep attention while reading. This was not corrrected.
Response 1: Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments because your suggestions
are constructive for improving our paper. The structure of the intruduction is as follow:
Paragraph 1: Started with a scenario as a background (“The scenario of a telemedicine scheme”) to
describe the paper problem statement.
Paragraph 2: The contribution of social and scientific prior studies to solve the problem, the
paragraph start with (“There is a variety of prior studies that contributed to solving problems”). This
part has been modified in the revised paper for more clarification.
Paragraph 3: Our contribution to solving the problem, the paragraph start with (“The contribution of
this paper”).
Paragraph 4: The structure of this paper, the paragraph start with (“The remainder of this paper”).
Point 2: Figure 6 is very small. Figure 7 and 8, etc. are deformed.
Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s good evaluation and deep consideration. These Figures are
improved in our revised paper.
Point 3: Better present the main idea of the article in conclusion. Now it is very short. Conclude with
the main results and scientific contributions in bullet points.
Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. This part was improved in our revised paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors,
The manuscript has been considerably improved, the authors have added the information requested in the first revision.I recommend the publication of the manuscript in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Dr
The point to point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:
Point 1: The manuscript has been considerably improved, the authors have added the information requested in the first revision.I recommend the publication of the manuscript in the present form.
Response 1: Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments because your suggestions are constructive for improving our paper and we appreciate your time .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have improved the paper. Still the proposed algorithm is relatively restrictive, as there is no proof that the physical distance to the hospital is correlated with the communication network throughput.
The algorithm has only been simulated; it has not been validated on a physical site.
Author Response
Dear Dr
The point to point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:
Point 1: The authors have improved the paper. Still the proposed algorithm is relatively restrictive, as there is no proof that the physical distance to the hospital is correlated with the communication network throughput.
The algorithm has only been simulated; it has not been validated on a physical site.
Response 1: Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments because your suggestions are constructive for improving our paper. We provided an onsite physical validation which is illustrated in section 4 (“4. System implementation”).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The text of the article has been improved. However, I still have a problem with the quality of the pictures. Electronics is a quality peer-reviewed journal. In my opinion, it is not possible for it to contain such poor quality images.
Figure 1 - small fonts in the figure, please improve quality of figure
Figure 2 - it should be larger
Figure 7,8 - figures are deformed, text is almost unreadable
Author Response
Dear Dr
The point to point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:
Point 1: The text of the article has been improved. However, I still have a problem with the quality of the pictures. Electronics is a quality peer-reviewed journal. In my opinion, it is not possible for it to contain such poor quality images.
Figure 1 - small fonts in the figure, please improve quality of figure
Figure 2 - it should be larger
Figure 7,8 - figures are deformed, text is almost unreadable.
Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s good evaluation and deep consideration. These Figures are improved in our revised paper. we appreciate your time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
The article “IoT-based Motorbike Ambulance: Secure and Efficient Transportation” tackles the problem of dynamic traffic management and connectivity for motorbike ambulances.
The article presents the proposed solution from different perspectives: the network infrastructure, communication protocols, security, and path finding algorithms. Still, main contributions should be emphasized more.
Regarding the swarm algorithm, there is no complexity check and no proof that the algorithm can handle real-time constraints, as it is intended to give “live” solutions.
Regarding section 4 lines 378-386, the recommendation makes no sense: “Based on the best throughput, the middleware tests which network is appropriate for connectivity and which medical center is closest to the user”. What is the connection between the physical distance to the hospital, the traffic, etc. and the communication network throughput?
“After implementing SWARM technology, ambulance motorbikes first transmit a small block window as a test signal to all surrounding hospitals within the coverage area. Second, deciding the best throughput, as an indicator of the nearest hospital, then connecting the emergency motorbike to this nearest hospital”. What happens if you have the strongest signal (highest throughput) from a hospital which is physically unreachable or it is full and cannot receive more pacients?
The presentation stile can be improved. Some minor changes should be made regarding spelling and some sentences should be rephrased for a better clarity:
e.g. Thus, a proposed network scheme has been necessary to increase… (line 27)
it must understand … (line 46).
That achieve by creating … (line 51), etc.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper titled IoT-based Motorbike Ambulance: Secure and Efficient Transportation.” presents a good topic, but some significant revisions should be considered.
Below some comments that need to be addressed.
- Section 3.2, it contains obvious statements without any reference!
- The current version contains a lot of abbreviations. I suggest to add a table for these abbreviations and delete all the abbreviations used in the text of your manuscript.
- There is a lack for published papers dealing with the same concept in discussion part, you should put more new references and comparisons with other research at the end of your discussion.
- Line 327, change this article to this study.
Good luck
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the article is very interesting and the need for such systems will grow. It also looks like a real prototype has been built or laboratory testing has taken place. These are big positives. Unfortunately, the article is marred by very poor formality. Some parts are very difficult to read. The formal aspects of the article need to be properly corrected before the scientific aspects of the article can be taken into account. I consider this to be essential.
Comments and suggestion:
1. The introduction consists of a very long text that has no paragraphs or subdivisions. It is practically impossible to keep attention while reading.
2. Algorithm 2 has different font type.
3. What are these "AutoShape" figures? Is it special type of Figure?
4. Some figures are deformed (AutoShape 8...).
5. Better present the main idea of the article, for example on more diagrams. Conclude with the main results and scientific contributions in bullet points.
