Edge Computing and Cloud Computing for Internet of Things: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors argued that hybrid solutions offer the most promising approach for leveraging the strengths of both edge and cloud computing to optimize data analysis in IoT ecosystems. Upon validating their claims, they put six (6) questions, and after a thorough investigation, they answered these questions in a scholarly manner. I have seen both thematic and structural unity in their survey paper, which makes the work credible. The review outcomes are as follows:

1) What is the main question addressed by the research?

1. How has the topic of edge computing developed concerning the interaction with IoT devices in 2022 and 2023?
2. What research topics have been developed on edge computing concerning the interaction with IoT devices?
3. What data analysis paradigms has edge computing enabled?
4. How has edge computing improved privacy?
5. What disadvantages are caused by decentralization related to edge computing?
6. Which processing architecture and in what form are they used in the IoT context?

2) Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

100% original and scholarly work, and of course, they have addressed a very fantastic gap.

3) What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

They explored different hybrid architectures, such as fog, mist, and dew computing, each with unique strengths and weaknesses, and scientifically proved their suitability for a specific application.

Also, the PRISMA workflow and Organization of this systematic review provide a very impressive graphical overview of the scenarios.

4) What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

1. The abstract needs a revision; the author should write the abstract in the following manner

a) The overall purpose of the study

b) Basic methodology of your research

c) Major findings as a result of your analysis

d) A brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions.

2. Figures 6 and 7 are the main diagrams, but looking very blurry. They should present these figures on a separate page but in high-resolution

5) Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and do they address the main question posed?

No Issues have been noted in the conclusion section

6) Are the references appropriate?

Replace these references with relevant articles [17], [22], [52], [57], [58], [59], [69], [70]. Also, I haven’t seen any reference related to Dew computing.

7) Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

 

Figures 6 and 7 are not designed professionally; they should be redesigned using high-resolution software like Origin 2024b.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: The abstract need a revision

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We revised the abstract following the provided suggestions and template.

Comment 2: Figures 6 and 7 look very blurry.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. We update figures using professional software and increasing their readability.

Comment 3: References

Response 3: We revised all references, removed the unuseful ones and inserted more refs about dew computing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Edge Computing and Cloud Computing for Internet of Things: A Review" is a good one, well organized and structured, and can be accepted for publication with only minor changes.

The authors made a review in which they examined different data analysis technologies for IoT ecosystems, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of edge computing and cloud computing, and evaluated hybrid solutions. Also, the authors highlighted both the strengths and limitations of edge and cloud computing resulting in edge computing offering lower latency and improved privacy through local data processing. In contrast, cloud computing offers greater flexibility and scalability.

 

Figures and tables are clearly presented and explained in the text.

It is preferable to have a table with the advantages and disadvantages of cloud and edge use.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript. We updated the manuscript with Table 3 and Table 4 summarizing advantages and disadvantages of both edge and cloud computing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for your work. The paper presents a relevant topic and has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the field. However, the issues identified in this review need to be addressed to improve the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the manuscript. The authors are encouraged to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the paper for further consideration.

 

1. General Layout and Structure:

The overall layout of the paper requires attention. Several instances of strange and unnecessary text breaks and line breaks are present throughout the manuscript. These disrupt the flow of reading and detract from the professional presentation of the paper. Specific examples include unnecessary line breaks on lines 25-26 of the first page, lines 50-51 on page 2, and lines 65-66 on page 2. This issue recurs on nearly every page of the paper. It is recommended that the authors carefully review the formatting to ensure consistency and improve the readability of the manuscript.

 

2. Research Motivation and Contributions:

The first paragraph of the paper, which describes the research motivation, is insufficiently developed. The motivation for the study is crucial in setting the context and importance of the research, and it needs to be articulated more clearly and persuasively. Additionally, the paper would benefit from an explicit listing of the study's key contributions. Highlighting these contributions early on will provide readers with a clear understanding of the paper's significance and impact on the field.

 

3. Language and Style:

The paper should adhere to formal English language standards. There are instances where informal language and irregular abbreviations have been used, such as "it’s" in line 96 on page 3. These should be corrected to maintain a professional tone throughout the manuscript. A thorough review of the language used in the paper is recommended to ensure consistency with academic writing norms.

 

4. Comparative Analysis and Innovation:

While the paper presents a survey of edge computing and cloud computing for the Internet of Things, as shown in Table 1, it lacks a thorough comparative analysis of the existing literature. The paper does not sufficiently explain the significant differences between this study and other surveys or reviews. Additionally, the innovative aspects of the study need to be clearly articulated. The authors should provide a more in-depth analysis that highlights the unique contributions of their work and how it advances the current state of knowledge in the field.

 

5. Depth of Analysis and Discussion:

The analysis and discussion provided in sections 4.4 through 4.7 are somewhat superficial. The paper does not delve deeply enough into the methods, results, and conclusions of related research on the problems and use cases (4.4), data analysis (4.5), privacy (4.6), and computer architecture (4.7). Furthermore, the paper should draw clearer connections between the studies discussed and identify both the similarities and differences. Additionally, the limitations of the current study should be discussed to provide a balanced perspective. Strengthening these sections will enhance the overall rigor of the paper.

 

6. Conclusion and Future Directions:

The conclusion section of the paper requires enhancement. In addition to summarizing the review, the authors should emphasize the main findings and perspectives derived from their study. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to propose potential future research directions in edge computing and cloud computing for the Internet of Things. Providing an outlook on future developments will offer valuable insights to readers and reinforce the significance of the study.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper should adhere to formal English language standards. There are instances where informal language and irregular abbreviations have been used, such as "it’s" in line 96 on page 3. These should be corrected to maintain a professional tone throughout the manuscript. A thorough review of the language used in the paper is recommended to ensure consistency with academic writing norms.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: General Layout and Structure

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We revised the manuscript to ensure its consistency and readability.

Comment 2: Research Motivation and contribution.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. We highlighted the motivation in the first paragraphs of the paper and we listed the key contributions at the end of the Introduction section.

Comment 3: Language and style

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. We revised the manuscript with the help of an expert to adhere to formal English language standards.

Comment 4: Comparative analysis and innovation

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. We highlighted the contributions of our review in the Related Work section.

Comment 5: Depth of analysis and discussion

Response 5: Thank you for the comment. We revised Results section to include a more detailed discussion about our results and key contributions.

Comment 6: Conclusion and future directions

Response 6: Thank you for the comment. We improved Conclusion section to include our key findings and better future research directions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised manuscript, I am pleased to report that the authors have adequately addressed all of the comments and suggestions provided in the initial review. The layout and formatting issues have been resolved, the research motivation is now clearly articulated, and the paper’s key contributions are explicitly highlighted.

Furthermore, the language has been corrected to align with formal academic writing standards. The comparative analysis and the discussion of related work have been significantly improved, providing more depth and highlighting the unique aspects and innovations of this study. The conclusion section now effectively summarizes the findings and offers insightful perspectives on future research directions.

I am satisfied with the revisions, and I believe the paper is now ready for publication.