IoT-Enabled System for Detection, Monitoring, and Tracking of Nuclear Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study of Carlos A. Hernández-Gutiérrez and coworkers might be interesting to the workers of the field. However, it lacks so many issues, which are so crucial to consider.

The abstract of the study has used some terms like “MQTT IoT” and “ORTEC” that are not defined. The introduction section lacks clear objectives, whereas the conclusion is not compact. Many background references related to this study are missing.

The abstract does not clarify the methods exactly used for the development of protocols for nation security. The electronic circuitry details are not discussed thoroughly.  Pictures are not of publication quality (all figures!) since they are blurry and fonts are too tiny; therefore, improvement is necessary and mandatory. Fig. 8 is totally unacceptable for publication in its current form. Why are Figures cited in the conclusion section? This is very unusual.

Authors have interchangeably used the word as “Voltage” and “voltage”, which is grammatically wrong, as in the sentences “The Voltage at 1 V was chosen after analyzing the amplified signal (Fig. 4) because capturing at least three samples is possible over this value. One detection will lie at the maxim voltage peak to …” Clearly, the paper needs significant repreparation  in terms of graphics, writing, and conclusion.

 

I have given my comments to authors.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is very clear and the research was laid out in a straightforward manner. The paragraphs are harmonious and well edited. The methodology applied is appropriate and the results have been expounded in a very clear and explanatory manner. I have nothing more to add or edit. Only I suggest that the explanation of Figure 8 be made clearer. The text states "As shown in Fig. 8, the system recognized the node and stored the detected peak value, date, and time when the event occurred, allowing tracking and pattern recognition." but it is not clear what to look at in Figure 8 and what it implies that the system recognizes the node. Perhaps highlighting in the image what indicates this, or writing in the text, what specifically to read. Otherwise I see that all is well and I give congratulations to the authors for the research done.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have problems with images of the paper. Authors have not improved the quality of pictures. Improvement is necessary.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your observation about the figures.

We are agree with your comment and as replay, we change and re-draw almost all the images employing origin especial plot software (please observe the figures).

Only figures 2 and 3 were not enhanced.

Regarding to figure 2, the image was taken directly from Eagle electronic software with the maximal possible resolution.

Regarding to the figure 3. The image were taken from STMcube32 configuration soft and from the datasheet of the microcontroller by cutting the image with the maximal possible resolution.

So, we kindly would like to say that we did our best to address your comment and we will appreciate if the quality of the images is accepted.  Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf