A Thorough Review and Comparison of Commercial and Open-Source IoT Platforms for Smart City Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper examines various IoT platforms, both commercial and open-source, for smart city solutions. It highlights the role of such platforms in developing smart applications, analysing aspects such as connectivity, communication protocols, dashboard/analysis systems and security.
Applications are analysed according to their capabilities, hosting options, data analysis, communications and systems management. The availability of platforms compatible with various telecommunication technologies to facilitate various smart city experiences, such as traffic and resource monitoring and environmental control, is also analysed.
The work presented is an excellent guide in the area of smartcities research and various enabling technologies.
Overall, the work presented is very relevant, well-written and appropriately structured, and the summary with tables helps the reader navigate the topic.
To improve the work, we recommend formatting the font of subtitle 2.1.3 to match the rest of the paragraphs presented.
To improve the introductory part of the work, we recommend intensifying the definition of Smart City and, for example, describing possible scenarios and a possible smart city scheme or architecture.
Finally, I congratulate the authors on their work.

Language formatting has no particular problems

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and helpful suggestions.

Please refer to the attached Word file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work.

The work presented is very interesting and innovative, it has 32 (thirty-two) pages with 89 (eighty-nine) References.

Below are some suggestions to qualify current research, including:

- How did you choose these platforms? What were the selection metrics? Explain in more detail, please;

- Why only open-source platforms? And why not a closed-source platform? What's the difference? How important is it? Please describe;

- Why were the following aspects compared: such as connectivity, communication protocols, dashboards/analysis, availability, security, etc.? Are there any specific metrics for this choice? Please explain this aspect in more detail;

- Explain this aspect further below: “Furthermore, an attempt to identify possible gaps between what each platform offers and what an actual city that wants to be “smart” is conducted.” It is not clear;

- Why were IoT platforms about the domains of industry, agriculture, and asset tracking also included? Are they the main segments within a city? Explain in more detail, please;

- How did this result come about? Is there a number/comparison? If yes, please enter. It is very important to enter numerical results, as it qualifies the search;

- Please separate the Completion of Future Work, being:

Chapter 6. Conclusion and Chapter 7. Future Work. In this way, we further highlight the importance of each element for this research and also describe these topics in more detail.

How important is this work for the global scientific community?

Furthermore, how important is this work for the future of the global scientific community?

Describe in more detail, please;

Grateful.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and helpful suggestions. Please refer to the attached Word file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the authors present a state-of-the-art survey on the current landscape of IoT platforms suitable for developing of smart city applications. The topic is interesting and worth investigating. The manuscript structure is not well organized. For example, more than two-thirds of the content is narrative, with the analytical part comprising only two to three pages.

My remarks are as follows:

This review article offers only a formal, narrative description of both commercial (41) and open-source (3) IoT platforms. Its drawback in the lack of a comprehensive comparative analysis of the advantages, disadvantages and specific application areas of the selected platforms.

In ‘Abstract’, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusions’ sections, the authors’ contributions should be clearly explained.

In ‘Introduction’ section, the IoT platforms utilized in the previous smart city studies or projects should be commented.

In ‘Results’ section, some fragments contain information that is considered common knowledge and could be omitted or shortened, such as the descriptions of IoT communication protocols (p. 17-19), real-time communication protocols (p. 20-22) and cybersecurity tools (p. 23-24).

In ‘Discussion’ section, a comparison of the capabilities of different platforms should be included. Some SC use cases could also be commented, and the appropriate IoT platforms could be recommended.

In ‘Conclusions’ section, study limitations should be included.

Technical remark:

l. 107: Treno -> Trento.

The manuscript requires substantial revision.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and helpful suggestions. Please refer to the attached Word file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations Dear Authors, after a long analysis it was observed that all corrections were successfully carried out. Therefore, I approve of the current work.

Grateful.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The quality of electronics-2942664_v2 "A thorough review and comparison of commercial and open-source IoT platforms for smart city applications" has been improved substantially in the following aspects:

 1. Additional details have been included about the development of leading smart city projects in "3. Technologies" section.

2. The analytical part, specifically the aggregation of characteristics of the investigated IoT platforms, has been expanded in "4. Results" section.

3. Practical implications of the authors' review have been outlined in "5. Discussion" section.

My remarks are as follows:

A "Conclusion" section should be added. This section should not only summarize the findings but also provide recommendations for stakeholders in future smart city projects.

Here, study limitations and future plans should also be commented.

The manuscript meets the main requirements of Electronics Journal.

My recommendation is "Accept after minor revision".

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please refer to the attached file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf