Architecting an Open-Source IIoT Framework for Real-Time Control and Monitoring in the Bioleaching Industry
, LluÃs Brosa 2, Albert Comerma 3, Josep M. Rossell 4 and Antonio D. Dorado 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented manuscript deals with the architecting of an open-source IIoT framework for real-time control and monitoring in the Bioleaching industry.
Abstract- The originality and novelty of the research activity are not well exposed and highlighted.
Page 1, Introduction- has to be improved; some important milestones in the presented research are missed.
Page 20- Description of Figures 13-17. Explain why Figures 9-13 are described in the same text. Seems confused.
Page 26, Discussion - the future direction of research is missing. The Pro & Contras are missing.
Note: Could you check the instructions for the authors? The line spacing does not follow the template.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study provides an Android app that showcases real-time plant data derived from sensor readings, paired with a robust server that features a flexible Application Programming Interface (API) to accommodate future application possibilities. The comments are given as follows.
1. Describe in detail the characteristics, i.e., confidentiality, integrity, accountability and reliability, of information security of this system.
2. The 5G communication system has now been developed, and this study still uses the 3G communication system as the experimental platform. Can the authors explain how to extend this system to a 4G or 5G communication platform?
3. Explain the scope of robustness and adaptability of this system.
4. What is the content of real-time control of this system?
5. There is no conclusion section in this paper.
6. What are the limitations of the proposed system?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author, the following comments and suggestions are made to your manuscript.
1. At this stage of the manuscript, the authors have not established the motivation for the manuscript and the contributions it offers. This point should be clarified in the introduction of the paper.
2. Concerning the literature review, the authors must differentiate between the proposed methodology and what currently exists. This is a suggestion that can complement the literature review section.
3. By describing the software architecture, the authors do not present a block or process diagram that indicates the logic of the code. This diagram must be included.
4. I consider that the authors must place the validation process that was carried out in the software architecture since the conditions under which this architecture has been carried out must be established.
5. What was the reason for using an ESP-32 card? Why not use some of the elements of Arduino Pro or some that acquire data in real-time?
6. What possible future work or modifications can be made to what is presented in this manuscript? This question should be answered in the conclusion section.
7. Some writing errors were detected throughout the document, so the authors are asked to verify this aspect.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
None
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author:
I appreciate the answers made to my questions and suggestions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone
