Artificial Internet of Things, Sensor-Based Digital Twin Urban Computing Vision Algorithms, and Blockchain Cloud Networks in Sustainable Smart City Administration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have enjoyed reviewing the paper "Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Sustainable Smart City 2 Administration: Internet of Things Big Data Analytics, Sensor based Digital Twin urban Computing Vision Algorithms, and Blockchain Cloud Networks".
The authors analyze the influence and potential of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Sustainable Smart City Administration. The topic is timely and engaging. However, I have several recommendations:
- The title is too long and should be rephrased for clarity.
- The research questions are missing.
- The search query and details regarding the selection criteria for the research are not provided. For example, did the authors search only for papers published in English? Were articles in the AIP database removed? Did the results include only journal articles, or were conference papers and book chapters also considered?
- The diagrams created by VOS require more explanation regarding the collaboration networks between authors. Each cluster needs a detailed explanation, including the topics addressed by the authors in each group, the reasons behind their research focus, the number of research groups with common interests, etc.
The paper is well structured. The introduction and conclusions are clear and detailed. I appreciate sections 8, 9, and 10 highlighting the research. It might be beneficial for the conclusions to be the final section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents the results of a systematic literature review on interconnected topics such as the Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Twins, and Smart Cities. As it is a literature review covering 5 years between 2019 and 2024, there are no reservations regarding its currentness.
The concepts involved are the focus of much research today, in favor of modernizing the infrastructural context of cities, to facilitate people's daily activities, having a link with sustainability, which is the core that gives the title to the periodical for which the work was submitted to ensure balanced development, always aiming for people's quality of life, improving working conditions, in addition to seeking green ways to consume the technologies involved.
Methodologically, the systematic review process involved three databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest. The PRISMA diagram in Figure 1 summarizes this process, showing each phase with the number of works in the filtering/selection applied by the authors.
Dome points to be improved in the manuscript:
1. Please, clearly state what are your research questions. You can inform them in your introduction, for instance, after the paragraph where you state the research problem (starting in line 62). Along the text, indicate the moments where each research question is answered.
2. In section 2, the authors mixed a part of their results with the methodology. I recommend creating a new section 3 dedicated to the findings, moving all the parts related to Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 to this section.
3. In place, still within section 2 of Methodology, insert a table summarizing other crucial items to the systematic review: the search strings, insertion/exclusion criteria, period, desired languages, type of works (journal article, book, book chapter, conference paper, etc.), applied software, and all relevant information to support reader finding these systematic review parameters easily.
4. Please, in your new section 3 of findings, insert some tables or graphs informing: the evolution of the amount of work in time, covering from 2019 to 2024; the amount of work by type; the top channels, for instance, separating the top 10 journals, the top 10 books, the top 10 conferences, etc.
5. If possible (if you retrieve this information), insert a new graph or table with the number of works by nationality.
6. Although the authors work on the issue of co-authorship, citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling networks being central elements in the analyses carried out by the authors, I missed, for example, some information that could have been extracted from the 59 works in the final selection:
a. What are the main approaches/tools/technologies associated, for example, with smart city planning? Since the authors have a section called "IoT green governance, artificial intelligence data-based mobile communication systems, and urban digital twin technologies for sustainable smart city planning" (currently section 3), I expected to see a listing of the main associated terms, with their frequencies, to guarantee the reader a more direct understanding of what is most recurrent about these items in the selected literature.
b. Consider the same comment above for current sections 4 and 5.
c. Also, according to the selected literature, what are the main opportunities, challenges, or gaps that the literature makes evident?
7. In current sections 8, 9, and 10, the authors seek to highlight the implications of the systematic review they carried out. I leave you with one last question, aligned with the implications:
a. What are the main social repercussions associated with the topics studied?
b. How can we make, for example, the creation of smart city strategies and the use of associated technologies more participatory, in favor of having citizens acting directly in defining the premises of sustainability and conscientious use of the resources provided?
c. How can public and private organizations, as well as the government itself, act to ensure that the use of these technologies remains sustainable, ensuring that they solve social problems, generating inclusion, rather than generating new problems?
Author Response
Please see the attachment:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provided answers to all the points I highlighted in the previous review round.
Regarding the table summarizing the systematic review methodology, it would be a shortcut for those interested in better understanding some parameters that you used in your process that are not evident in the PRISMA diagram and that are scattered in the related text. However, the information about them is recorded in the text.
The new section "11. Opportunities, challenges, and gaps according to the selected literature" is quite direct in what it proposes to comment on, so this section represents an interesting addition to the text of the manuscript.
