Smart Sensorization Using Propositional Dynamic Logic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses the transient two-phase flow and spatial distribution of bubbles in a continuous casting mold. The following comments are made to make this manuscript better for readers. 

1. The title needs modification. The title summarizes the main idea or ideas of your study. A good title contains the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of your research work.
2. Authors' affiliations are not as per journal format.
3. The abstract lacks a description of the problem statement and
4. It would be better to mention some specific outcomes in terms of quantitative analysis, not just simple sentences in the This would help to know exactly the outcome obtained from your study.
5. The literature review is not satisfactorily summarized the current state-of-the-art research work.
6. There are several research works have been done on similar topics. Please summarize some relevant work in the introduction. Then identify the research gaps.
7. The addition of a brief discussion on some relevant research papers can be helpful to find research gaps. Thus, it would support the current problem statement of the work.
8. The novelty of work has been not identified.
9. As I read the last passage of the introduction section, I realized that the title seems not correct and exact as defined in the problem statement. It would be good if you modify this title to make clear sense of your work. Also, mention the objective of your work in detail.
10. The actual/real figures of your setup are missing and have been not discussed.
11. The results section and validation are completely missing.
12. The experimental work needs to be explained well using pictures. Further, it should be explained on the basis of parameters or sensors used.
13. You should start a NEW section of Results an
14. The conclusion should be in detail. It would be better if you summarize all the outcomes in bullet formats in detail.
15. Please see the PDF copy of the attached manuscript. I have highlighted some mistakes in the manuscript.
16. English grammar and spelling mistakes should be checked.

Best wishes, 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached a response to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This reviewer appreciates the authors’ effort for preparing such nice review article and suggests some of the following points to improve the quality of the paper in the revised version:

1. Limit the usage of acronyms in Abstract and Conclusion.
2. Redraft the Introduction section with background, challenges, motivations, literature survey, contributions/novelties, and the organization of the paper. Highlight the novelties/major contributions of the work (at least 3 bulleted points) prior to organization of paper. Also expand the literature survey with some recent (last 3-years) works.
3. Try to maintain the work-flow of the article (especially during transitions between sections/ sub-sections) to improve the quality of writing.
4. Try to discuss the work objective focusing on your contribution.
5. Justify your claim by comparative analysis with the cotemporary techniques.
6. Redraft the conclusion section, addressing the comparative result findings appropriately with numerical evidences. Include at least one specific future scope to it.
7. Please redraft the entire manuscript with a thorough proofread of the article to rectify some existing typos and grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Please find attached a response to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Domatics is a field that has enormous potential and undoubtedly, in the context of the subject of the article, may be of interest to Sensors readers. The description of the system is quite accurate and consistent. It seems, however, that the article will be of  qualitiest if the authors extract from the text and present in a tabular or graphic form those elements that determine the advantage of the proposed solution over existing solutions. For example, a noticed problem - a proposal for a solution in the presented system.
The article is based on a qualitative analysis. I miss even a very simplified quantitative analysis. What are the projected savings over the assumed period (energy, costs, ... etc.) in relation to the now applied solutions. Something that will enable, for example, a simplified assessment of the profitability of introducing the proposed system.
I have not found any information on how the system reacts in the event of a reduction in water supply.  There are situations where water needs to be stored at night due to the limitation of its availability during the day?
Due to the lack of, at least simplified quantitative analysis, the thesis about the reduction of the demand for conventional energy for heating utility water has not been proven in the article.
The conclusions do not raise virtually any new information. They are a repetition of the summary. There is range for improvement in this regard.

Author Response

Please find attached a response to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Ok