Risk Assessment of Heterogeneous IoMT Devices: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written. The only comment that I would have is include paper references for Tables 1 and 3 -- that will make those tables more complete. 

And, there are minor English edits needed here and there.

Author Response

Thanks for the feedback. Please find the responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reviews the literature on the Internet of Medical Things and its risk factors. However, this paper does not meet the standards of literature. There are several other published works that contribute better than this paper. As a survey paper one can estimate the following:

1. Why is this survey needed in current scenarios? The authors added answers to this question to the introduction.

2. There are several survey papers available on the IoMT in the literature. How is this survey different from them? What additional information can readers get out of it? (For more details have a look at Table 1 of ‘Survey on recent advances in IoT application layer protocols and machine learning scope for research directions’)

3. Figure 1 is available in the published paper. In this case, the authors can provide their own figures, and not reproduce existing ones. It might be a copyright issue.

3. Section 2 is lengthy and descriptive. The authors are requested to summarize each subsection with points. It is recommended to provide summary tables/figures for each topic with their advantages and limitations. However, there are several articles that were recently published, and they are not reflected in this paper.

4. Provide the taxonomy for the algorithms used in Section 3.

5. There are no future directions found in this paper. Future directions are the key to a survey paper, and they are a roadmap for upcoming researchers. So, the authors must provide a separate section for this.

6. Provide statistical analysis on this topic with respect to publications and research happening in recent years.

More comments technically:

7 Most of the figures used in this paper are available in the literature and published papers. So, there is no freshness in the figures.

8 Section 3 is not informative.

9 The comparisons and limitations of existing works are summarized using tables.

10 Due to the survey on IoMT risk factors, most of the paper omits them. Almost all of the paper discusses architectures and only a few subsections discuss risk factors associated with IoMT.

11 Most of the citations of this paper are not related to IoMT.

Author Response

Thanks for the feedback. Please find the responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the enclosed comment file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thanks for the feedback. Please find the responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments addressed and may be considered for publication