Conceptual Model of Key Aspects of Security and Privacy Protection in a Smart City in Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no novelty in this paper. You have to address the following comments: (1) The title of the paper should be changed, and main novelty in the model should be added; (2) I suggest the author adding some simulated experiment,. (3) The computation result of different models should also be discussed;

 

Author Response

Title was slightly adjusted while the scope and contents of the work were improved to add novel insights. The new title: "Conceptual Model of Key Aspects of Security and Privacy Protection in a Smart City in Slovakia".

The work now focuses more on the Slovak context which distinguishes it from the other literature. Whole paragraphs regarding policy aspects were added. Conclusions and discussion as well as the scope and contents of the work were improved to add novel insights.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a research study to describe a conceptual model focused on security and privacy protection in smart cities. The model identifies the most critical requirements, opportunities, issues, and factors for designing a safe, smart city conceptual model.

 

The paper is interesting; however, some aspects must be improved.

 

The abstract must be rewritten. It must briefly present the research summary and highlight the main contribution.

 

It is necessary to justify this conceptual model focused on security and privacy protection in more detail. What is the main difference between other models of the state-of-the-art? Could you let me know what the contribution is to ensure its implementation in a smart city?

 

Please, in the section “Literature review,” it is necessary to report research studies concerning this particular topic and their influence and effectiveness in smart cities. Moreover, at the end of the section, authors must compare their proposal and the reported works in the literature review, emphasizing the differences and advantages.

 

I think presenting a general schema about the methodology includes the stages and particular tasks in the conceptual model.

 

I think adding a section in which authors provide guidelines, initiatives, or policies to implement the model; who can make it? Government, stakeholders? Please, create a discussion about these themes.

 

It is challenging to analyze the contribution of this paper, particularly in the case that a conceptual model for security in smart cities is proposed. Authors must find a way to compare their proposed model with others. I suggest the authors build a table in which the main characteristics of their model could be evaluated with other literature models. Moreover, with this information, a statistical analysis can be performed to provide quantitative evidence regarding the effectiveness and novelty of their model.

 

Improve the conclusions and define a set of future works concerning this conceptual model.

Author Response

The abstract was expanded to better reflect the work. The work now focuses more on the Slovak context which distinguishes it from the other literature. Whole paragraphs regarding policy aspects were added. Conclusions and discussion as well as the scope and contents of the work were improved to add novel insights.

Reviewer 3 Report

Following are the observations regarding the manuscript:

Research Gaps must be supported with multiple references.

Key contributions is missing .

The authors are required to include paper organization In the last of the introduction section.

Results are not explained adequately. Elaborate the methodology and results part. Results should be improved based on methodology.

Figures are not of good quality and authors should make sure that figures are self drawn.

Absract needs to be rephrased to incorporate more clarity regarding the article.

Formatting also needs to be addressed properly.

Flowchart of the methodology should be added.

Conclusion needs to be improved.

 

Author Response

The Abstract was expanded to better reflect the work. The work is now more focused on the Slovakian context which distinguishes it from the other literature. Whole paragraphs regarding policy aspects were added. Conclusions and discussion was enhanced to provide more added value. The work is structured to draw from broad literature but also examine the context of the Slovak Republic.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article has an interesting title and purpose. Data security in smart cities is an important and current research problem. The authors choose a literature review as their research method. Basically, it's the right choice. Nevertheless, the article is not sufficiently in-depth for a literature study. Needs significant expansion. The main comments are given below: 1. Expand the overview by at least 30-40 items. 2. The authors should refer to the previous research results in this area, both the opinions of residents and technology providers. 3. The discussion should specify the authors' contribution to the previous considerations. 4. The article definitely lacks the authors' own thoughts and suggestions. Therefore, if it is to be only a literature review, it should be definitely developed. It is insufficient in its present form.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The resources were extended to provide more resources for systematic review as well as improve the fidelity of the result. Conclusions and discussion as well as the scope and contents of the work were improved to add novel insights and provide more space for authors' own thoughts and suggestions. The work is structured to draw from broad literature but also examine the context of the Slovak Republic.

Regarding the questions:

1. The article was revoked for better achievement of stipulated goals.
2. New Title: Conceptual Model of Key Aspects of Security and Privacy Protection in a Smart City in Slovakia
3. The work is structured to draw from broad literature but also examine the context of the Slovak Republic. Discussion and Conclusions combine inputs from the reviews and examine possibilities, assumptions, problems and factors of feasibility in Slovakia.
4. The work uses mixed methodology.
5. Conclusions and discussion as well as the scope and contents of the work were improved to add novel insights and provide more space for authors' own thoughts and suggestions.
6. The resources were extended to provide more resources for systematic review as well as improve the fidelity of the result.
7. Was ipmroved.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The author have improved  the article according the suggestions. The article could be published now.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You, we apriciate the comments.

Kind Regards

Authors