Infosphere Is Reshaping: How the Internet of Things Leads Smart Campuses for Knowledge Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

In the Abstract, the results are not correlated with the title of this paper, in special with the keyword IoT.

The Introduction must be improved concerning the technological context.  The references in-text are all the time at the end of statements. We recommend avoiding these kinds o references because the quality of formulation is affected. The last paragraph of the Introduction is necessary to declare the objective of this research.

I strongly recommend refining sections 2), 3), and 4)  concerning the correlations between title, goal, objectives, and research questions. The manner of presentation is not appropriate for an academic paper. 

In figure no 1, there is included in the "Application Layer" an ATM in the process of education. Why?  Figure no 1 must be explained.  

In the table 3 is not clear what means "tool", and this is not defined before. Table 3 has a formatting problem, I think.

Without a model of research and a methodology (the path of research) assigned is very hard to understand the content of this paper. Please, explain why did you apply from your research interest point of view a particular one statistical approach, by reference to other scientific studies, if the case.

 In the results section is not clear explained the last column from table 6 and 7, and why is so important mean and standard deviation for the answers of questions 1 and 2.

The start of sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 are not appropriate for an academic paper. 

 

The conclusions are too general and in the logic of truisms. Please, use only Conclusions for section 8. We didn't see recommendations and future work. 

Please explain this statement "Despite the challenges, IoT could revolutionize the higher education 482 ecosystem."

In this paper we identified a gap between title where is about KM an the content of paper where is about education. You must decide very clear if you discuss about the sections of KM or about the education in general and campus in particular. This aspect is not clear.  

Some formulations are not proper for an academic paper, e.g. lines: 164, 417, 418, 419.

In text, the references style is not fully correctly applied. 

Author Response

Dear Prof.

I hope you are doing well and safe.

Thanks for all notices that enrichment the article. as follows we do all notice as we can.

All Regards

Reviewer (1):	Action taken
Recommendation: Resubmit for Review
P1: The 275 faculty members were from the same university or from different universities. They should be from different universities. Make this clear in the text of the paper.	The required modification was made as in Table 1
P2: The whole paper suffers from long sentences. Try to use short sentences to be clearer and understandable.	The required modification was made
P3: What is the main contribution of the paper? A section should be added in the paper to present in a clear way the main contribution of the paper.	Action taken : Corrected The required modification was made and the main objectives of the study were clearly laid out 4. Research Objectives: -      To identify the the concept of the Internet of Things and its mechanisms of action, and the scope of its applications in the university environment and its relationship to knowledge management. -      To explore the challenges facing the use of the Internet of Things in Saudi universities.  -      To identify if there differences in the effects of the Internet of Things on ULE among faculty members in Saudi universities due to the variable (gender, academic rank or experience).
P4: In the beginning of each section, one or two sentences should be added to describe the content of this section. Don’t start immediately in the section	The required modification was made
P5: The titles of section 3 and 4 need to be modified and changed.	Action taken : Corrected 3. Research Questions: 4. Research Objectives: 5. Literature Review
P6: In Table 1: Technical environment, Application, Management system, should be in the left side of the table not in the right of table.	The requested table has been corrected
P7: For all tables, follow the format of the journal.	Correction has been made according to the journal's formats, and the order of references has been modified according to the journal's style
P8: The novelty of the paper should also be clear.	References have been updated
P9: More details and discussions should be presented about the methodology, e-Questionnaire, and the results presented in Table 2, 3, 4. Everything should be discussed and be clearer.	The required modifications were made in this aspect, with an explanation of the methodology for building the questionnaire and the way to work through it
P10: I suggest converting some of the tables presented in the paper to charts, bars, or figures because it will be easy for the eye of the human to see the difference from the figures than tables.
P11: Section (6. Results) should be divided into small subsections e.g., 6.1 Answer of Question 1, 6.2 Answer of Question 2, … and so on.	The requested table has been corrected
P12: In Table 5 and 6, there is an error in the word Maen. The correct is (Mean).	The requested table has been corrected (Mean).
P13: The main concern about this paper is its writing. I ask the authors to rewrite the paper with more discussions particularly the methodology and the results sections.	The requested table has been corrected
P14: Conclusion of the paper should summarize the paper including the main results that obtained from this study. Therefore, I recommend the authors to reconsider the conclusion part. In addition, some future works can be added at the end of this section.	The requested table has been corrected
P15: References can be updated by using references from 2021 and 2022. The following paper is related to the topic of this study. The authors may use it in the literature review part.	Required reference has been added "AndroidTrack: An Investigation of Using Social Networks’ Applications in Android Platforms." Iraqi Journal of Science (2021): 2445-2453. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2021.62.7.33
P16: Finally, Revise the English of the paper.	done

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Paper: Infosphere Is Reshaping: How the Internet of Things Leads Smart Campuses for Knowledge Management

The paper has been improved compared with the previous version. However, the writing of the whole paper should be improved and be clearer. Some minor revisions are required as follows:

Comments:

P1: The title of the paper should be modified and improved. I don’t understand what (Infosphere Is Reshaping) is meaning.

P2: In the beginning of each section/subsection, one or two sentences should be added to describe the content of this section/subsection. Don’t start immediately in the section/subsection.

P3: The novelty and the main contribution of the paper should be improved and written in a better way.

P4: Improve the writing of the whole paper and revise the English.

P5: Section 2. The Problem, section 3. Research Questions:, and 4. Research Objectives:, should be subsections in section 1. Introduction. Make these sections as parts of section 1.

 

Author Response

Dear Prof.

I hope you are doing well and have safe.

Thanks a lot for your notes that enrichment our article.

We do all notices as we can, as in the attached file.

 

All Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I have no other questions.

Author Response

Dear Prof.

I hope you are doing well and have safe.

Thanks a lot for your notes that enrichment our article.

We do all notices as we can, as in the attached file.

 

All Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

At this moment, the quality of the paper is better than in the previous form. But from the cover letter sent by the authors, I don't understand very well if they had or did not have access to the comments on my review. 

In the following paragraphs, I will discuss only the aspects asked from my part:

"The Introduction must be improved concerning the technological context.  The references in-text are all the time at the end of statements. We recommend avoiding these kinds o references because the quality of formulation is affected. The last paragraph of the Introduction is necessary to declare the objective of this research."

 

1. The recommendation was not taken into consideration. In addition, the text references are not correct, but this is a technical problem. It is ok, for my point of view. 

2. The last paragraph doesn't refer to this paper's objective, but I can understand that there is a special section with this objective. It is ok, for my point of view.

"I strongly recommend refining sections 2), 3), and 4)  concerning the correlations between title, goal, objectives, and research questions. The manner of presentation is not appropriate for an academic paper."

 3. I can understand that sections 2, 3, and 4 are in the authors' approach a part/continuation of the introduction section, but I can't understand to include in the section's title ":" and in the content a list of enumerations, as we can see in section 4. This formal aspect must be solved!

 "In figure no 1, there is included in the "Application Layer" an ATM in the process of education. Why?  Figure no 1 must be explained."

4. As we can see in the current form of the paper, this aspect is not solved yet. This aspect must be solved, in my opinion!

"In the table 3 is not clear what means "tool", and this is not defined before. Table 3 has a formatting problem, I think."

 

5. This aspect didn't was explained yet. 

"Without a model of research and a methodology (the path of research) assigned is very hard to understand the content of this paper. Please, explain why did you apply from your research interest point of view a particular one statistical approach, by reference to other scientific studies, if the case."

6. The model is not included in this version, but in this updated form, the paper is clearer than in the previous form.

" In the results section is not clear explained the last column from table 6 and 7, and why is so important mean and standard deviation for the answers of questions 1 and 2."

7. I consider that this aspect is not fully solved yet, even in this updated form.

"The start of sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 are not appropriate for an academic paper."

 

8. I consider that is a formal aspect and is possible to solve without more effort.

Pay attention, please: In section 7.5, there are "12 main criteria", and in the Abstract we have "11 main" criteria.  This aspect must be solved! 

"The conclusions are too general and in the logic of truisms. Please, use only Conclusions for section 8. We didn't see recommendations and future work."

 

9. Sorry for the appreciation that "we didn't see recommendations". The recommendations there are, but the formulation is not correct. See the formulation in text!

Regarding my recommendation for this section, I find out that there are no updates in this section or explanations in the cover letter. There is the same error in the formulation.

"Please explain this statement "Despite the challenges, IoT could revolutionize the higher education ecosystem." 

10. I didn't find a explanation in the cover letter. 

 

"In this paper we identified a gap between title where is about KM an the content of paper where is about education. You must decide very clear if you discuss about the sections of KM or about the education in general and campus in particular. This aspect is not clear."

11. For this aspect, I am waiting for a simple explanation in the cover letter. There is no explanation yet. 

"Some formulations are not proper for an academic paper, e.g. lines: 164, 417, 418, 419.

In text, the references style is not fully correctly applied."

12. In this new version is possible to differ the page numbers, but the remarks are available yet.

Finally, I don't see a real new version in this moment, or is a technical problem of version management in the platform. From my perspective, my previous recommendations are not implemented yet.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor, 

I hope you are fine and doing well. 

All inquiries had been answered in the attached file. 
Thanks a lot for your recommendations. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Congratulations on this acceptable level of your paper's research!

After the analysis of the new version and the content of the cover letter, I can tell now that this version is better than the previous version.

Of course, there are some minor aspects to improve, for example, the content of lines 241-244. It is possible to eliminate line 243, "3. Research Questions:", and reformulate the paragraph about research questions. Usually, the research question is integrated into the section "Literature review", but it is possible also to find it in other papers in the Methodology (Material and Method) section. I recommend keeping the research questions in Literature Review with a minor update of the text.    

It is possible to reformulate line 97, with the presentation of the whole structure of the paper because you have not only "the theoretical background". You also have M&M, Results, and Conclusion.

There are other minor errors in formatting text, but these will be discussed in the next step of technical editing text. 

I recommend also accepting, before publication, professional editing, if possible.

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I hope you are fine and doing well.

All notice has been done as you Recommended.

All Regards, 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Paper: Infosphere Is Reshaping: How the Internet of Things Leads Smart Campuses for Knowledge Management

This paper gauges Saudi universities’ readiness to integrate the Internet of things in knowledge management and identifies the challenges relating to its use. This paper should be rewritten and reorganized to be in a good form. The main objectives should be clear. I ask the authors to do the following comments and modifications to improve the paper.

Comments:

P1: The 275 faculty members were from the same university or from different universities. They should be from different universities. Make this clear in the text of the paper.

P2: The whole paper suffers from long sentences. Try to use short sentences to be clearer and understandable.

P3: What is the main contribution of the paper? A section should be added in the paper to present in a clear way the main contribution of the paper.

P4: In the beginning of each section, one or two sentences should be added to describe the content of this section. Don’t start immediately in the section.

P5: The titles of section 3 and 4 need to be modified and changed.

P6: In Table 1: Technical environment, Application, Management system, should be in the left side of the table not in the right of table.

P7: For all tables, follow the format of the journal.

P8: The novelty of the paper should also be clear.

P9: More details and discussions should be presented about the methodology, e-Questionnaire, and the results presented in Table 2, 3, 4. Everything should be discussed and be clearer.

P10: I suggest converting some of the tables presented in the paper to charts, bars, or figures because it will be easy for the eye of the human to see the difference from the figures than tables.

P11: Section (6. Results) should be divided into small subsections e.g., 6.1 Answer of Question 1, 6.2 Answer of Question 2, … and so on.

P12: In Table 5 and 6, there is an error in the word Maen. The correct is (Mean).

P13: The main concern about this paper is its writing. I ask the authors to rewrite the paper with more discussions particularly the methodology and the results sections.

P14: Conclusion of the paper should summarize the paper including the main results that obtained from this study. Therefore, I recommend the authors to reconsider the conclusion part. In addition, some future works can be added at the end of this section.

P15: References can be updated by using references from 2021 and 2022. The following paper is related to the topic of this study. The authors may use it in the literature review part.

 "AndroidTrack: An Investigation of Using Social Networks’ Applications in Android Platforms." Iraqi Journal of Science (2021): 2445-2453. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2021.62.7.33

P16: Finally, Revise the English of the paper.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and well written. 

 

Title: Infosphere Is Reshaping: How the Internet of Things Leads Smart Campuses for Knowledge Management

 

Abstract: The article gauges Saudi universities’ readiness to integrate the Internet of things (IoT) in Knowledge Management (KM) and identifies the challenges relating to its use. A descriptive-analytical approach was used to discuss the concepts, development, and general structure that characterize the IoT and its related challenges and to find ways to address them. This study used a three-axis questionnaire, which was applied to 275 faculty members and information technology officials in Saudi universities .The results revealed that a strategy related to the development of infrastructure and the provision of equipment and applications to deal with and analyze big data is needed, besides the conviction of the faculty and specialists in its potential in developing the teaching and learning environment in universities and providing unique research by interlinking the network of laboratories and research and training laboratories. The results also revealed that its effects on the university learning environment are gender, rank, and experience agonistic. Finally, 11 main criteria and 44 sub-applications were reached to manage the smart campus's information generated by IoT.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The paper studies the relationships between Internet of Things and knowledge management for university campuses. The topic of this paper is interesting. However, there are some issues with the paper:

1. The introduction and the other parts fail to show the relationship between IoT and knowledge management.

2. The methodology used in the paper is questionnaire. The paper should present the questionnaire and how the questionnaire is designed.

3. The paper can better explain what the three axes are.

4. The paper should better explain what the questionnaire results are and what the results demonstrate.

5. Please pay attention to the format, punctuation, etc.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Abstract:

In the Abstract are presented the principal aspects concerning goal, method, results and originality, but in a very subtle way. It must to include clearly every aspect enumerated previously.

Introduction: 

There is no declared the objective of the paper in the final part of Introduction.

Problem

In line 82, the reference is not clearly formulated;

Literature review on topics is not so appropriate. There are no references and reviews on smart campus;

"Based on the interviews, the research team analyzed studies that clarified IoT’s mechanisms and their effects on measuring, deducing, and understanding environmental indicators in both vital environments and natural resources."  

It is not recommended to put in the problem section something from your research action!

Questions are too direct and simple formulated without a short introduction in context. We identified four of five questions without a direct connection with the paper's title in the context in which there is no research model or a clear explanation of why they are necessary all of them. 

The 4th question must be reformulated without (0.05) inside of this!

Framework: 

This is a kind of literature review. But the literature review is necessary to be oriented toward the title and research question and not to clarify the principal concepts in the matter. 

We do not understand very well what kind of reference is it: '... expectations (Aldowah et al., 2017). (Agarwal, & Pati, 2016; Al-Emran, et al. 2020).' 

The same question for ' earning formats. (Shin et al. 2016). Table 1 ...' . 

It Is not clear what is the next formulation: 

KM is “systematic processes or a set of 191 practices used by organizations to identify, record, store, create, represent, distribute and represent knowledge for use, awareness, and education in other parts of the organization (Abd, 2019).” 

The quotation and the reference are not correctly used. 

Methodology and Procedures 

The methodology is not clearly explained. Why are there three axes in this approach, why are different statistical indicators used, and why are mixed methodology with this statistical analysis?  

Results:

Q1: We do not agree with the approach used to find a response for question 1. The q1 is: 'What is the level of readiness of the Saudi universities to integrate the IoT into KM?' Asking the members of the first axis from KSA (what means KSA? is this Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) about 20 indicators we think that are not representative for the whole Kingdom (or is something missing in the methodology of research!). Why did you choose these 20 questions? Is there a theoretical motivation for all of these questions? 

There are the same concerns from our part and for the next research questions. 

Conclusions and recommendations 

The assertions included here are too general.  

Generally speaking, the title is not totally in concordance with the content and the research approach is not clearly presented nor appropriate.