An Investigation of the Policies and Crucial Sectors of Smart Cities Based on IoT Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting review on IoT applications in Smart Cities. Very interesting approach. I will be happy to pass this paper should the below be addressed:

1. In the introduction, the reader is made to understand that there are numerous urban challenges (at various intervals), but we do not know what those are. While those are apparent to the reviewer, it may not be for everybody. Please expand.
2. More information needs to be provided in the methodology. I do not understand?was a bibliometric analysis performed with those 2 identified keywords? how many papers were identified, how many were selected? those are key information, so that the reader can assess if this is a viable paper to keep reading.
3. I would recommend adding the key references below:

https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities1010002

https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities2010007

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-29800-5

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105201

https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities2020009

https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4040068

https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4030064 https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4020047 https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4020041 https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4020024

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper offers a review on eight sectors of Smart Cities, identifying problems and proposing solutions.

 

Generally:

-Although the paper is well divided, many sentences and some concepts are continually repeated in the various paragraphs. This makes reading difficult, tedious and confusing.

-Although the references reported are many, these are summarized. I suggest to report the missing technical details which are indispensable for a review.

 

Specifically:

-In the abstract, the aim of the paper should be better clarified.

-Lines 137-138, this sentence adds nothing relevant.

-Lines 152-153, this sentence very emphasizing. It would appear that the authors have investigated all available archives.

-Lines 166-168, the description of figure 1 must add something more than what has already been reported previously in the same paragraph.

-Lines 214-217, check the sentences.

-Lines 322-325, check the sentences.

Author Response

Thank you for valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer to the attached comment

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you for deep comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments have been correctly addressed.

I recommend the publication of this paper. 

Author Response

Hello dear and thanks for your comments.

Responses for reviewer2 (as track change) are attached. We tried to respond to all comments in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx