Underpinning Quality Assurance: Identifying Core Testing Strategies for Multiple Layers of Internet-of-Things-Based Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done Author for a very detailed and captivation work.  The abstract is well spelt out. The author proposed presents a comprehensive paradigm that could assist Quality Assurance specialist in identifing all important testing techniques that must be performed for Quality Assurance for IoT-based applications in order to reduce their failure rate in real time. 

However, my few comments are as follows:

The introduction and literature review/related work are very satisfactory but could be made more robust knowing fully well that there are some very interesting study that have dwell on this areas of WSN, IoT, 5G and AI. I would advice the authors to look into this work. For instance.

        Integrating Artificial Intelligence (A.I), Internet of Things (IoT) and 5G for Next-Generation Smart grid: A Survey of Trends and Prospect” IEEE Access, Vol 10, pp. 4794-4831, 2022 .

 

Effic Topology Discovery Protocol for Software Defined Wireless Sensor Network” Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 256~269, ISSN: 2302-9285. many  more.

 In the test the author mistakenly  use IOT instead of IoT. That should be corrected.

The authors should move this to the next page 5.EVALUATIONS

Where was that graphs generated from. No source was cited. Was it an analysis or an algorithms? Kindly explain.

So far, I am impressed with the author presentation. He/she should just look at the comments and the paper is good to go.

 

Well done

 

 

 

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

See Attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a comprehensive paradigm that could assist quality assurance engineers in identifying all important testing techniques to perform for quality assurance of IoT based applications in order to reduce their failure rate in real time. Further, it also investigates the mapping of the all the identified research tests at each layer of IoT’s layered framework.

The reviews and comments made on the paper are as follows.

1.      To easily track abbreviations throughout the text, create a “nomenclature” table before the “Introduction” section that defines the abbreviations clearly. In this way, it becomes easier to understand the paper and it helps that the same abbreviation is not defined more than once. For example, the abbreviation IoT is defined twice (lines 18, 36), but the abbreviations LAN, WAN, MAN, QA are not defined in the relevant section (lines 44, 56), even though their meanings are guessed. Abbreviations used in the texts of other sections and graphics should also be carefully checked and defined in the “nomenclature” table.

2.     Section 5 should be named as “Results and Discussions”. Some percentage values are missing in the pie chart in Figure 4. It would be more appropriate to present these with other, more understandable graphic types for clarity. Likewise, the same applies to others. The results given in this section should be discussed in detail as much as possible.

3.     Conclusion is a section where the results obtained from the study are expressed exactly as they should be. For example, the expression such as “The primary focus of this research was to identify all the important testing techniques for IoT-based applications and propose some framework that assists Quality Assurance Engineers to perform necessary tests during Quality Assurance Process for ensuring quality with maximum customer satisfaction, reducing failure rate, and cost, and lastly, to accelerated SDLC” is written in a way that completely refers to the past. However, the results obtained from the study are completely relevant to today. In this regard, the Section Conclusion section should be rewritten to clearly conclude the investigation results as much as possible.

4. More current studies should be included in the reference list if possible. It is apparent that only 4 of the 46 reference are from 2022 and 2 of 46 reference from 2023.

Minor editing of English language may be required.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have conducted a thorough review of the paper and would like to provide some constructive comments aimed at enhancing its quality:

1.       In the abstract, it is imperative to articulate the objective of your work more explicitly.

2.       Within the introduction section, there appears to be a deficiency in providing a clear motivation and delineation of the contributions of your work. I recommend that you augment this section by enumerating the motivation and contributions in a point-wise manner.

3.       The authors have presented an extensive literature review; however, I would recommend that it be condensed to focus solely on pertinent information and discussions.

4.       To enhance the comprehensibility of each section, it is advisable to commence with an introduction that provides context and aids in the comprehension of the subsequent content.

5.       If the paper is not classified as a survey paper, it is advisable to include an exhaustive discussion comparing your work to existing research.

6.       The merits and advantages of your work should be delineated in a separate section dedicated exclusively to this purpose.

 

7.       In the conclusion section, it is imperative to incorporate a discussion of the paper's limitations and delineate potential avenues for future research.

Moderate editing of English language requi

Author Response

See attachment plz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The figure quality is very poor.

No mathematical model for the proposed framework is developed. Queuing time should be considered. A mathematical model (with Queuing time) will help assess the proposed framework's performance.

Author Response

See attachment plz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Change  "Introduction" header to "INTRODUCTION" header. Do the same to Section 6.

2. Figure 2 can be improved by usin MS Office Tools.

 

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 2:

Comments 1:

Change  "Introduction" header to "INTRODUCTION" header. Do the same to Section 6.

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. The pointed mistake has been corrected.

Comments 2:

Figure 2 can be improved by using MS Office Tools.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The Figure 2 has been revised for your consideration.

I am really grateful for the time and effort the referee invested in, in order to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is ok

Minor checking required.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 3:

Comments 1:

The revised version is ok

Response 1: Thank you for the appreciation.

Comments 2:

Comments on the Quality of English Language.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The paper has been thoroughly checked for typos or grammatical mistakes, and is further improved in this regard.

I am really grateful for the time and effort the referee invested in, in order to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf