Design of Remote Upgrade System for Data Processing Unit in Marine Engine Room Simulator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have analyzed and test the functionality of the data processing unit in the marine engine room simulator and fix software issues at any time. It does performance analysis on the improved Data Processing Unit after firmware upgrade. Overall, the paper’s strength is: The paper idea is good, with new references. In addition, the authors tested the proposed system.

However, there are some problems with this paper as the following:

1.       The abstract could be improved by following the suggestions: (page 1)

a.       Our suggestion is that the Design of Remote Upgrade System, and (In-Application Programming) technique in this model can be described better.

b.       Our suggestion is that the present the research problem in a better way.

c.       Our suggestion is that the values of Test results show such as accuracy.

2.       The Introduction could be improved by following the suggestions: (pages 1-2)

a.       Our suggestion is to improve the sentence (lines 32, 33,  and 34)and reformulate it better.

b.       Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence in (lines 45, 46, 47, and 48).

c.       Our suggestion is to improve the sentence (line 59) to be more organized for example " In the fourth part, Testing and Discussion that describe.....".

d.       Our suggestion is to add the research aim.

e.       Our suggestion is to add a contribution of work.

f.        Our suggestion is to add a paragraph about the related works of the paper topic to be more organized.

3.       Description of Simulator could be improved by following the suggestions: (pages 2-3)

a.       Our suggestion is to improve the sentence (lines 66- 67) and explain the meaning of the M-side.

b.       Our suggestion is to modify Figure 1 by clarifying its parts.

c.       Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence in (lines 73, and 74).

4.        (Firmware Remote Upgrade Design) could be improved by following the suggestions: (pages 3-7)

a.       Network Architecture of the Firmware Upgrade Protocol. (page 3)

Our suggestion is that the paragraph can be edited as follows:

                                                   I.      Rearrange the paragraph by moving (lines 85- 88) and placing them after (line 93).

                                                 II.      There are also no references in this paragraph (lines 85-103). Our suggestion is to add the references.

                                               III.      Our suggestion is to modify Figure 2 to be better by clarifying its parts.

b.       Function Design: this paragraph consists of two-part            (pages 3-4)

1- Flash Partitions:

      Our suggestion is that the paragraph can be edited as follows:

                                                   I.       Our suggestion is to start with the flash memory definition and its partitions, then define each partition (with reference).

                                                 II.      I noticed that the authors mention that embedded systems consist of two parts of code: the bootloader and the user application, but they define only the bootloader (without reference). Our suggestion is to add the definition of the user application with reference.

                                               III.      I have noticed some errors in (Table 1. Flash address.) for example, the address of the reserved information area, as well as the total size of the flash partitions that are mentioned in the table, does not match the total size of the flash. In addition to modifying the table title into the flash partitions. Our suggestion is to edit it to be better.

2- Interface Design:

                                                   I.        Our suggestion is to edit the sentence (lines 123–124), such as defining the MQTT protocol and its purpose.

                                                 II.       I have noticed the sentence in (line 127) “three distinct message quality levels are available" but the authors mention only one, which is ("QoS2") Our suggestion is to edit it to be better.

                                               III.        Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 127- 129)

c.       Remote Upgrade Program Design: (pages 4-5)

                                                   I.      There are also no references in this paragraph (lines 132-133). Our suggestion is to add the references.

                                                 II.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 151 - 152)

d.      Reliability Design:         (pages 5-7)

                                                   I.      There are also no references in this paragraph (lines 155-160). Our suggestion is to add the references. Also, this paragraph consists of two-part   

1-      Program Validation Mechanism: (page 6)

                                                 I.          Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 162-164).

                                                 II.      Our suggestion is that the paragraph (lines 165–167) can be improved where the authors mention CRC but do not mention its full name, in addition (without reference).

2-      Backup Upgrade Mechanism: (pages 6-7)

                                                   I.      Our suggestion is that the paragraph (lines 174–177) can be improved where the authors mention the term "watchdog" without defining it, in addition (without reference).

                                                 II.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 182-185).

5.      Testing and Applications: this paragraph consists of two-part (page 7-9)

a.      Firmware Upgrade Function Test    ( pages 7-8)

                                                   I.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 190-191).

                                                 II.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 193-194).

                                               III.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 200-201).

                                              IV.      Our suggestion is that the paragraph (lines 204–206) can be improved where the authors mention the term "buggy firmware" without defining it, in addition (without reference).

                                                V.      Our suggestion is that the paragraph (lines 206–208) be edited to be better by explaining table 3.

b.      Remote Upgrade Stability Testing            (pages 8-9)

                                                   I.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 210-211).

                                                 II.      the sentence in (lines 214–217) can be improved where the authors mention the term"TS" without mentioning its full name and without defining it, Our suggestion is to edit it to be better.

                                               III.      Our suggestion is to add a reference to the sentence (lines 220-221).

                                              IV.      the sentence in (lines 222–223) can be improved where the authors mention the term"TC" without mentioning its full name and (without reference), Our suggestion is to edit it to be better.

                                                V.      I have noticed values are mentioned in a sentence (lines 224–230). For example, "the actual average of the two nearest data sending intervals is 60.11 ms," does not match with those mentioned in figures 7a and 7b. Our suggestion is to edit it to be better.

                                              VI.      I have noticed values are mentioned in a sentence (lines 231–239). For example, "the software’s average near data send interval TS is 64.10 ms and its average near data receive interval TS is 64.18 ms." does not match with those mentioned in figures 8a and 8b. Our suggestion is to edit it to be better.

6.       Conclusions: (page 9)

Our suggestion is to improve the conclusion as follows:

1.       Start with the proposed system, its purpose, what the authors have done, and finally future work.

2.       “In addition, the paper proposes system’s application can upgrade the functionality of the DPU in the marine engine room simulator and fix software issues at any time". Our suggestion is that the paper can be improved by proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1- Keywords spelling should be revised. Shorter keywords should be preferred.

2- "Firmware upgrades are a critical component of the Internet of Vehicles and the Internet of Things." . Please review the sentence. Isn't what is important for the IoT already important for its subset?

3- In the 53rd line, it was started as if it were to be sorted by items, but the text was presented in paragraphs. Please edit.

4- In the Introduction part, the problem in the literature should be revealed more clearly. In addition, at the end of the introduction (before the 53rd line), the scientific contribution or contributions to be provided should be listed as items. I also recommend reviewing the following studies:

- https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11081024

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.745

- https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110880

5- The method and findings section is not sufficient. In particular, the findings and discussion section need to be further matured. The performance changes of the system presented in different situations or conditions should be presented in more detail. While not required, comparisons with similar systems for enrichment can be added. The pros and cons of the system should be presented more strikingly in the conclusion.

My personal opinion: A manuscript that is appropriate in terms of subject and method, but in need of maturation. I would like to review it again after the necessary adjustments are made. For this reason, I recommend a major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper can be accepted in present form