Smart Cities Big Data Algorithms for Sensors Location

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

improvements should be performed at title (usage of big letters), abstract needs to be oriented to research questions. state of art should be more specific to research topic and used to identify improvements. Section 3 figure 2 needs to be related with others approaches to the topic. The proposed approach handles all data types and formats. there is no specification of requisites about this. Authors should clarify this topic figure 9 needs more explanation regarding new location and the usage of proposed methodology There is no evidences that this approach can be applied to others cases. Some application procedures are not clear

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your comments, they were very helpful to enhance the paper.

The title was changed. The abstract was oriented to the research question, and it was rewritten changed.

Figure 3 was changed; particularly in Phase 4 activities were explained. The Figure is now related to Data Mining and pattern recognition. The paragraphs after the Figure were included.

Figure 10 was also changed, and a paragraph where it is mentioned was extended.

Section 2 was also extended and changed trying to clarify the procedures; this section contains the method.

The changes can be observed in the Word documen attachedt; they are highlighted by the Word review function with underlying and differential text color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer is curious to see the attempts of the authors in revising the paper. The reviewer has the following suggestions/comments:

1) The abstract can be revised to include more details of the proposed approach. Authors may improve the abstract by including the existing challenges, motivations and outcomes of the paper.  Abstracts usually have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions.

2) Introduction section is incomplete. It mainly can include four key components: motivation, literature survey, contributions, and the organization of paper. Please modify this section accordingly. 

3) Figures require improvement in terms of the quality and font type. It is recommended to the respected authors to use the same font size for all figures. 

4) In order to make the conclusion section more clear, authors are highly encouraged to include the point-by-point findings of this article. The current conclusion is written very wide and it is not easy to maintain the key findings.

5) Please talk about the future work briefly in the conclusion section.

Author Response

We would like to thank your for your comments, they were very helptul to enhance the paper.

The reviewer is curious to see the attempts of the authors in revising the paper. The reviewer has the following suggestions/comments:

1)         The abstract can be revised to include more details of the proposed approach. Authors may improve the abstract by including the existing challenges, motivations and outcomes of the paper.  Abstracts usually have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions.

R: The abstract was changed accordingly to the reviewer comments.

2)         Introduction section is incomplete. It mainly can include four key components: motivation, literature survey, contributions, and the organization of paper. Please modify this section accordingly. 

R: We changed the Introduction and we included three paragraphs to fulfill this observation

3)         Figures require improvement in terms of the quality and font type. It is recommended to the respected authors to use the same font size for all figures. 

R: Figures were changed, all using the same font size

4)         In order to make the conclusion section more clear, authors are highly encouraged to include the point-by-point findings of this article. The current conclusion is written very wide and it is not easy to maintain the key findings.

R: We changed this section accordingly.

5)         Please talk about the future work briefly in the conclusion section.

R: As future work variables from other sources will be combined with those obtained from sensors. 

The changes can be observed in the Word documen attachedt; they are highlighted by the Word review function with underlying and differential text color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I see that this is the second round of review for this paper.

Unfortunately this is the first time I see this paper and I have found major problems with it. Although interesting, it's still badly written. It's difficult to follow. There are 4 phases, and apart from phase 1, which is easy and strightforward, phases 2 and 3 are explained without emphasizing the algorithms used and theirs details, what are you predicting? also the description of algorithms is interrupted by the description of the architecture in cloud (see from line 291 to 299).My suggestion is to completely reorganize the work in architecture and algorithms. In architecture you explain the overall goal (locating the sensors) and the architecture to achieve it, in algorithms you explain all the algorithms: what is the goal of each algorithm, details (for replicabilty) and accuracies (didn't find a table with accuracies)... it's required to understand WHAT the algorithm is learning. About phases 4, I don't get where do you compute coordinates for new sensors? do you just pick the halfway position among two exisitng hot points? that's not clear.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

We reorganized the work as suggested also the process to pick the positions was better explained as highlighted on the attached paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Wrong labels in figure and most of then are not clear.

Ex, Fig1 does not belongs to these authors. fig 3 (labeled as 2, pag 6) not all sensors have GPS and format are not uniform. why midle point?

Fig 5 too small

Paper needs more work. Better ideia flow and better justifications.

for example "The Data Mining process is considered as a process of knowledge discovery in Data Bases (KDD) 22] and should be guided by the 7 phases recommended by [23]: Data Integration, Data Selection,  Data Cleaning, Data Transformation, Data Mining, Pattern Evaluation/Presentation, Knowledge"  Discovery. Data Mining phase is a step of selection through the application of Machine Learning  techniques, in this case, aimed to reduce the number of variables to find models or classification  patterns"

this is generic explanation, what we need is to clarify how it is applied. What are input and outputs.

all papers is written in this way and is not a proper scientic approach

For example

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for the comments.

The whole paper was reviewed for ideas flow.

Figures were correctly labeled.

We include two new paragraphs one at the end of the Introduction and one in section 2.

The changes are highlighted in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no other comments

Author Response

Thank you for the review.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors improved the paper and now is more readable.

Thank you.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Figure 1 does not belongs to the authors.

Authors only combine several ideas without a proper explanation

Still not clear how authors applied fig 2 proposal that comes from typical data analitics

Author Response

Figure 1 was designed for the paper, we have the canvas files.

The paper was rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf