FIWARE-Compatible Smart Data Models for Satellite Imagery and Flood Risk Assessment to Enhance Data Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The current version of the manuscript "FIWARE-compatible Smart Data Models for Satellite Imagery and Flood Risk Assessment to Enhance Data Management" presents improvements over previous versions. However, from the point of view of generating interest among readers, more specific results of applications in different areas could be presented as supplementary material. From the point of view of the development of the system, I believe that it presents adequate content for publication. I would like to point out that the term FIWARE is already used on the Internet for other conditions, which may cause difficulties for readers of the journal.

Moderate English corrections are required.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The article can be published as it is.

Moderate English corrections are required.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made changes that have improved the manuscript, but the data presented between lines 600 and 606 is difficult to see in figures 9 and 10, due to the way it is presented and the use of colors. this aspect deserves improvement. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I read with interest your article. I cannot judge in all its extent the programming aspects, given that I am not an IT person, even if I work in a connex field.  Therefore, I shall refer to the other aspects.

Even if the idea is interesting, its presentation is not. First, the references are not in the correct format, neither in the text nor in the text. Secondly, the footnotes are not recommended in the journal's template.

Moreover, many references are not significant. There are phrases that should not be referenced, given that they contain known facts. Please check the Introduction and remove those references, together with the associated parts, by knowledge significant to your research.  Other studies, or at least partially similar to what you propose, must be emphasized.

The introduction part is too long and must be reorganized to include the background. At this stage, it does not stimulate the reader's interest. It should be shortly pointed out what has been done till now and the drawbacks of the actual approaches. The methodology should be more concisely presented, pointing out only the essential steps and leaving the rest for the appendix. 

Lines 373-392 should be moved to the Introduction before presenting the novelty of your research. Section 4.2 does not have a place in this article. Another article should be built around it. 

Please try to shrink the information that can be summarized and reorganize the content considering the structure: Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, and eventually, Case study and Conclusion. 

Some phrases must be reformulated. 

Moderate English editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors modified some aspects, mainly in terms of form, which improved the manuscript. However, some figures remain difficult to visualize, such as Figures 6, 9 and 10.

Author Response

Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered none of my remarks.

I consider that the article has potential and is interesting from a scientific view point. Still, modifications are necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf