Design and Deployment of Vehicular Internet of Things for Smart City Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper attempts to study the IoT paradigm from vehicular perspective. It designs various hardwares to be implemented in practice. The paper is well-written and technically sounds well. I therefore believe that this paper has a merit for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your observations.
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of the paper is very challenging. The domain of mobility and using IoT is developing fast, and the paper reflects the needs of IoT implementation. However, I would appreciate a deeper analysis focused on the services in mobility and final utility for the stakeholders (citizens, municipalities, etc.). It is not IoT itself, but the very high demand of smart services based on them that foster the development of similar solutions, described in the paper. I recommend adding the part about it to the introduction and to the closing discussion. Also, the authors should explore the resources better - there are several models of Smart City infrastructure, including IoT.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your observations, the comments have been addressed and responses and clarifications have been included in the file attached.
Thanks
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented a case study showcasing the implementation of a low-cost IoT prototype system for V-IoT application. The paper requires major editing, proofreading and needs to be rewritten in light of the above recommendations:
1- Highlight the research problem / question and the gap that the paper aims to address. Position this work wrt other related research and highlight what novelty does it bring.
2- Sections 1 & 2 can be shortened to 2 pages max. The authors should instead invest more efforts to discuss related contributions and how these relate to (diifer from) their work.
3- Some discussions in section 3 are not very accurate or not well justified (e.g. lines 46-47, line 65, line 82, line 70, lines 176-177, lines 197-198, Fig 2).
4- Line 91 mentions the architecture in Fig 2 as a contribution, which is not the case. The standard IoT architecture actually has more layers including the processing and the business layer which are missing from Fig 2.
5- Please highlight the main objectives of the pilot study. Was it implemented in real-life? Do you have numerical results related to PLR?
6- Some of the choices made for the pilot study need to be justified. For example, the installation of environmental sensors onboard versus on RSU. Usage of WiFi in section 3.1, which assumes Wi_fi coverage presence, the usage of cameras to monitor congestion (why not using IR sensors)
7- The reviewer is not sure how road names were extracted? Is this based on some computer vision algorithms? The OLED size is too small to be implemented in real-life, inferring that the work might be positioned as a POC and not an actual field deployment.
8- There is no need to further describe algorithms 1 & 2 are they are intuitive by nature.
In summary, the authors are advised to shorten sections 1 & 2, add a literature review section, highlight their contribution, and put more effort to explain their case study, including the analysis and design aspects as well as the technological choices. The paper also requires careful proofreading.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your observations, the comments have been addressed accordingly, kindly find the answers in the attached file. Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I feel that the authors adequately addressed most of the comments provided. The paper has been refined compared to the earlier version.
