Undergraduate University Education in Internet of Things Engineering in China: A Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled “University Undergraduate Education of Internet of Things Engineering in China: A Survey” deals with a very interesting topic. It is quite interesting and informative to most readers of this field such as decision-makers. The background of the paper is clearly explained and, it is well grounded in the body of knowledge in the area.

However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve their paper:

• What are the managerial implications from this research?
• How could decision or policy makers benefit from this study? This issue deserves a deeper discussion.
• As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor, for volunteering his precious time in handling our submission. We also appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. This submission is a revised version of Paper education-1175588, which has taken into account all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the editor and the reviewers will be satisfied with the updated manuscript. In the attached response file, please kindly find the responses to all the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is interesting and mostly well-written. The organization is linear and the provided insights very vertical but meaningful. To further improve the quality of the paper, Authors should deeply proof-read the paper for fixing typos and minors like: *countrie *profession. for example *,and *level[? ] *a guid *less data exchange *development[7], Ren[20] , 2010[11] Moreover, for a better presentation, Authors should: *at section 1, present the provided contributions with a bullet list before reporting the paper organization *cite and beside [7] at page 1 *adjust the width of Tables 1,4 as correctly done for Table 3 Finally, relationships with Auhtors' previous works should be underlined, if any. Summarizing, the manuscript has merit but a minor revision is required before its full acceptance

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor, for volunteering his precious time in handling our submission. We also appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. This submission is a revised version of Paper education-1175588, which has taken into account all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the editor and the reviewers will be satisfied with the updated manuscript. In the attached response file, please kindly find the responses to all the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting with the presentation of iot technologies for education. The paper reali presents different studies, but the authors must include more recent studies. The purpose and scope are presented, but the author must discuss the findings. The paper must be better elaborated with the discussion. The presentation of the findings should also have a schema to synthetize. Also, the pros and cons of each technology must be presented. The value of this paper will improve with it. 

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor, for volunteering his precious time in handling our submission. We also appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. This submission is a revised version of Paper education-1175588, which has taken into account all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the editor and the reviewers will be satisfied with the updated manuscript. In the attached response file, please kindly find the responses to all the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors covered my comments. Now, the manuscript is acceptable.