A Smart Airport Mobile Application Concept and Possibilities of Its Use for Predictive Modeling and Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

On page 1/2 lines 44-46 you need to include more references since you state "in many publications" but you cite only one. The introduction is very descriptive narrative, does not provide enough cutting edge or new information on the developments of smart airport 4.0. 

 

The research methodology needs to be elaborated further. The way it reads at the moment suggests that your methods focus on the design of the application, rather than the methods of data collection and analysis. For instance, you state that your sample consisted of 385 respondents but in the results you refer to 10 people who tested something like an application. You do not provide a clear overview of what these people tested. It is not good practice for academic papers to include bullet points, I strongly recommend that you elaborate on these points and you link them with your literature review. 

 

Overall I think that this paper need to be readdressed to communicate in a clearer manner what it tries to achieve. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice research paper which is worth publishing. The idea of systematically testing an airport mobile app and identify some kind of "reference" app is very interesting. The formal testing approach makes sense to get representative results. Presentation is good, however, there are some caveats: I do not understand Table 2, what are these testers? They seem to be a subgroup of the whole testers, but what subgroup. Otherwise, i'm fine with the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- In the paper, the authors try to present the requirements for the Smart Airport Mobile Application Concept and Possibilities of its Use for Predictive Modeling and Analysis.

- The paper has methodological flaws, such as the research hypothesis not being defined, so there is no statement in the conclusion about the eventual acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.

-The article is quite confused, not systematic

- smart airports have some assumptions such us: 1) smart airport mobility, 2) smart airport logistics, 3) smart airport infrastructure, 4) smart airport services, 5) smart airport grids, 6) smart airport equipment, which is not discussed in the article

- smart airport need to fill one more assumption, which is competent people, too

- smart airport means implementation of contact-less technology, too.

- no examples of such airports are given

- acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think you have addressed most of the comments, but according to the status of your submission, there are still a few things that need to be improved. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Changes accept