Narrowband Internet-of-Things to Enhance the Vehicular Communications Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes the Narrowband Internet-of-Things to enhance the robustness of the vehicular communication system.
This study investigates an interesting research question. The methodology seems convincing, but its novelty does not clearly arise. The results should be better investigated. The discussion is lacking. Furthermore, the contribution to the research literature should be better and more extensively delineated.
· “1. Introduction” section: The aim of the paper is adequately defined but its novelty (if any) should be better and clearly highlighted, also about previous studies.
· “1. Introduction” section: This section is rather concise and somewhat hasty. I would like to see the reasons for the study explained in more detail. Furthermore, it would be nice if past work were explored in a little more detail.
· The reference [25] (DOI: 10.1007/s11277- 389020-07845-7) has been retracted. Please fix it.
· “3.3. Simulation Results Performance” section: Please provide justifications for the simulation parameters of this section, also, possibly adding one or more references.
· “3.3. Simulation Results Performance” section: This section also presents the output of the experiment but, the discussion of the results is very brief and does not even offer a cursory description of the high-level findings. More exploration is required here.
· A discussion section is missed and should be added to address an extensive interpretation and a clearer explanation of the findings, and a critical comparison with other systems in the literature needs to be addressed. The limitation of the proposed system (e.g.: the vehicle’s speed is limited to 70 km/h) should be also declared. I recommend to add a specific “Discussion” section.
· “4. Conclusions” section: This section is too brief, and essentially repeats some quantitative results reported in the previous section. Please, highlight key points in your analysis and findings, elaborating on their significance. Some concrete recommendations to improve V2V communication based on the results obtained should be provided.
· The paper's contribution to the research literature should be clearly delineated.
· Overall, I would like to see the rationale for the study explained in more detail, the methodological choices justified in more depth, the results explained in more depth, and the conclusions and implications of this work (in real-world terms) shown much more explicitly.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madame
Future Internet
I am writing to you in order to respond to the reviewer's comments “Reviewer 1” as attached about the submitted manuscript entitled "Narrowband Internet-of-Things to Enhance the Vehicular Communications Performance" and referenced to "futureinternet-2082084", which you submitted to Future Internet.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a current issue with regard to vehicular communications, increasingly important and necessary due to technological evolution and the ever-increasing requirements of the end customer.The work focuses only on the V2V, but they could also have made a relation with V2X, as in fact the needs extend not only to communication between vehicles but also with infrastructure and people. The work lacks a comparison between its methodology and others that work with the same objectives.
Tables 2 and 3 are out of layout.
The presence of 4 self-citations in the paper is not the most correct.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madame
Future Internet
I am writing to you in order to respond to the reviewer's comments “Reviewer 1” as attached about the submitted manuscript entitled "Narrowband Internet-of-Things to Enhance the Vehicular Communications Performance" and referenced to "futureinternet-2082084", which you submitted to Future Internet.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have sufficiently addressed all my comments.
The sentences from line 237 to line 239 are the same as the ones from line 318 to line 320, please check and fix them.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper became more complete. I am clear with the new entries introduced into the paper as well as the responses that were given.
