Internet of Things Gateway Edge for Movement Monitoring in a Smart Healthcare System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper investigates the role of the embedded electronic boards like Raspberry Pi in health care case of Pre-operative Prehabilitation Programs (PoPP). I read the paper carefully. It seems like overview about IoT in health monitoring, which is given in many studies. There is no detail of experiments, no comparisons, no analysis of results, and no findings. Also, the quality of English in this paper needs to be revised for example “Plays important role” in the abstract and “5. Conclusion and feature work” in the section title. Moreover, the novelty of the work is very limited. There is no comparison with the other published related work to show the contribution of this work. There is no major contribution for this paper.
Extensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
First, I would like to thank you for your time to review my paper and for your valuable comments to improve the paper quality.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled " IoT Gateway Edge for Movement Monitoring in Smart Healthcare System " suggest a new solution for the IoT gateway that can be used in healthcare system. The proposal is beneficial for monitoring patient daily activities. However, we suggest the following changes:
1- The references (citations) in the text must be cited chronologically [1] ... [2] ....
2- Use linking words to link between the main parts of the text.
3- write the full name of words before using their abbreviations (like GPS,ECG, LCD..)
4- Give some limits of the related works (cited in the introduction)
5- Describe briefly the obtained results of your propose in the last paragraph of introduction . Then, give some short sentences about the organization of the rest of the paper.
6-Discribe in details How your proposal is different with other related works.
7- Add more references especially the works published in 2022 and 2023
Author Response
First, I would like to thank you for your time to review my paper and for your valuable comments to improve the paper quality.
My response to your respective comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors show that the gateway can handle a variety of tasks simultaneously in terms of data collection from different WSD, data analysis, activity recognition, patient monitoring, electronic health records etc but details are missing. In opinion of this reviewer, the work is just an implementation of an IoT system and there is no signification results obtained that is worth discussion. The only strong point is reasonable details in “Activity Recognition outlier filter”, rest of the paper is very abstract.
The main contribution is hard to understand.
It is not clear if Equation 1 is author’s work or it is taken from ref [11]?
For “I” what is the justification for allocation of intensities of 0.75, 1.00 and 2.00 for light?
The paper is hard to understand. Is “ investigate the role of the embedded electronic boards like Raspberry Pi in health care case of Preoperative Prehabilitation Programs (PoPP)” the main contribution? If so, it is insignificant. It is suggested to extend the work. Writing only details of the experiments is a trivial thing. It is suggested to study more papers in the area such as smart health, IoT, e-health etc and then make a comparative nalysis with existing technologies.
Conclusion is too long. Statements such as “In the current stage of development, the research concept relies nearly exclusively on the gateway as an edge IoT computing device, managing, and processing various types of data between the lower-level WSD and the upper-level cloud services using Thing” does not sense in conclusion. In my opinion, conclusion needs major rewrite, see “These devices are often compact, lightweight, and simple to wear, making them user-friendly and enabling continuous monitoring throughout the day.”
Typos:
There are may typos. Even abstract has typos. Rewrite is needed.
IoT gateways like local computational facility, mobile devices, or custom miniature computational embedded electronics like Raspberry Pi. Plays important role in supporting the necessary processing and data compression as well as presenting the front-end event detectors? Pi. Plays? It needs fix.
Similarly “as well as having the potential for covering the necessary 20 edge computing. number of key data handling and analysis requirements “ ? edge computing. number of key data handling…?
Extensive rewrite needed.
Author Response
First, I would like to thank you for your time to review my paper and for your valuable comments to improve the paper quality.
My response to your respective comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
There are 2 main issues. First, this paper does not have sufficient quantitative results and analysis. Please ensure you add at least or around 2 more pages for results and analysis, which are below the expected amount. Second, some references can be added. I prefer to wait for the round 1 outcome. Only if it is a major revision, then it's more worthy to suggest some references rater than now.
Please double check with English proofreading.
Author Response
First, I would like to thank you for your time to review my paper and for your valuable comments to improve the paper quality.
My response to your respective comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
1. The authors could illustrate a flowchart for the firmware design and implementation to make readers easily understand the overall system operation.
2. The format in the references should be revised according to the Author Guidelines of electronics journal.
3. Some errors were highlighted in fluorescent as attached manuscript. The authors should double-check the correctness before re-submission.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The writing in Englishe needed to be improved.
Author Response
First, I would like to thank you for your time to review my paper and for your valuable comments to improve the paper quality.
My response to your respective comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Previously, I rejected the manuscript because it did not achieve enough content to be published. I did not see major contributions. The main points in the paper are investigating the specific role of the Raspberry Pi within the health care system, particularly in its support of prehabilitation remote monitoring and providing an overview of the Internet of Things (IoT), which are simple, you can find it in many online contents, and cannot reach the level of research article. However, after reading the authors' responses and the appropriate contents of the comments in the manuscript. This manuscript can be accepted as a review after addressing the following comments:
1. Modify the type of manuscript to “Review” instead of “Article”.
2. Add additional major contents to improve its quality and reach the level of critical research review, especially as the authors said that “there is a scarcity of research addressing the topic of remote monitoring prehabilitation. Therefore, our aim is to address this gap in the literature.”
3. Listing and reviewing all works in the same field of the paper and including them in the study of previous works, explaining that there are no previous works, and identifying that gap at the end of the introduction.
4. Determine the limitations, issues, implications, possible solutions, and future directions of the research topic.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I would like to thank you so much for taking the time to review my paper and for your valuable comments that enrich the paper's contents.
Please find the response to your comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Ok
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I would like to thank you so much for taking the time to review my paper and for your valuable comments that enrich the paper's contents.
Please find the response to your comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have not addressed my comments properly and it is still hard to understand the main contribution.
-
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I would like to thank you so much for taking the time to review my paper and for your valuable comments that enrich the paper's contents.
Please find the response to your comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The overall quality has been improved with added quantitative results. As previously mentioned, if the overall quality is improved, then suitable literature can be used and compared. First, as raspberry pi, some well-known papers that use raspberry pi and develop for commercial uses should be used and compared. At least 1 algorithm should be shown, and experimental results for algorithm, eg. An industrial IoT sensor system for high-temperature measurement. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 2021, 95, 107439. Second, security and privacy for healthcare systems/applications can be enhanced. Although this is not authors' original focus, any explanations or additional work will be highly relevant, eg. Achieving privacy-preserving DSSE for intelligent IoT healthcare system. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2021, 18(3), 2010-2020. Third, please improve on proofreading and general clarity to ensure the paper is highly readable. By meeting criteria of these three points, finally, research contributions can be further strengthened.
Please improve on proofreading and general clarity to ensure the paper is highly readable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I would like to thank you so much for taking the time to review my paper and for your valuable comments that enrich the paper's contents.
Please find the response to your comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
