Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is generally well written and structured 

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Flexible and Modular Metering System to Monitor the Energy Consumed by the execution of Computer Software

The main issue with this paper is the novelty. I do not see any contribution of this paper. In several countries we have smart meter which give real time consumption and cost of energy used. In my home I have this system for both my electricity and gas. Thus, it is difficult for me the see any significant contribution of this paper. If the system and process already exist, then this paper only reinvent the wheel. I, however, still want to give the authors any opportunity to address my above main concern, revise their paper, demonstrate the contributions of their research, and resubmit for consideration.

Secondly, I am not sure if the experimental work and their results has any statistical significance. This need to be demonstrated to ensure that the results obtained from this research are reliable. In this regard, the number of experiments and the results analysis need to be considered and to ensure that the paper provide some statistical analysis to prove the significance. I assume you might be aware how to establish this statistical significance, however, if you try to review this paper “Making future floating cities sustainable: a way forward”, then it will give you some idea.

Finally, I want you to cover the relevant literature in an explicit manner because there is a lot of work already done in this area. I think it should be a systematic review to ensure the capture of relevant literature more effectively. Here is an article which demonstrate the systematic literature review in an easy and best way “Key factors influencing the implementation of three-dimensional printing in construction”.

I hope to review your revise paper soon.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a system to monitor the energy consumed by the execution of computer software. The paper is well-organized and interesting for readers. However, it can be improved such the following comments:

1. In the paper, the system is implemented on an open-source/Linux platform. The authors should address the possibility of other operating systems.

2. Since the additional hardware is required for measuring the power, it should be described how to implement it for general purpose application.

3. Scale in Fig. 11 could be improved to show better reading in the power consumption.

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have now addressed my previous comments and I am happy with their revision. The paper can be accepted now.