Emerging Perspectives on the Application of Recommender Systems in Smart Cities
, Ramón-Alberto Carrasco 2,*, Carlos Porcel 3, Jesús Serrano-Guerrero 4, Francisco Mata 5 and Mario Arias-Oliva 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "Emerging Perspectives on the Application of Recommender Systems in Smart Cities" aims to carry out a bibliometric analysis on the topic of Application of Recommender Systems in Smart Cities.
Major aspects to be reviewed:
- "O2. To identify in which application areas smart cities are being developed" this objective is not approached in the context or recommender systems.
- the time span for the article selection (in section 3) is not clear. there a single reference to the year 2019 ("Two study periods are established, 309 taking the year 2019 as a reference. ") but doesn't explain what years were include and which were excluded. Please clear this aspect! PS - Although Fig 4 and 5 illustrates the two phases (2019 and 2020) the years before 2019 and after 2020 are not specified.
-authors declare (line 291) they use PRISMA 2020 statement. In this statement, there is a recommended flow http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_flow_diagram_new_SRs_v1.docx which they authors do not implement in figure 1. Please comply with PRISMA 2020 statement.
- for a better understanding of the selection methodology, maybe the information in the lines 299-304 should be backed-up with a print screen capture from WOS website (where the time span will also be visible).
- the type of the submission should be changed from "Article" to "Review" as the authors simply review the literature and this is their main contribution to the domain.
Minor:
-in line 151 authors mention "These systems (namely recommender sys.), designed to provide accurate suggestions in e-commerce environments" but they do not reference a manuscript. Maybe this one will backup their statement https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095531 and only this one (statement)
-line 292 the subtitle "2.1. Bibliometric analysis" should be renumbered to "3.1"; similarly, for the subtitle from line 318 "2.2. Systematic literature review"
-line 445 reference Figure 5b while Fig 5 doesn't have specified a and b!
-lines 166-168 should be revised as the variances of the word "recommend" appear too many times (4) and some can be replaced with synonims. Please check the rest of the document for similar issues.
- the authors should also mention the limits of their review.
Author Response
the review response is included in the word file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with an up-to-date topic. Smart city development has its history. Several concepts and applications are available, but the increasing number of them makes the common understanding difficult. Review attempts in the field are welcome.
The benefits of the paper are a well-structured presentation, the use of systematic methodology (PRISMA), and the style of the presentation. I found that the goals, methods, and results are appropriately selected, and the application level is good.
I have two requests before the publication, which are considered minor issues since these are easy to do. At the same time, I call the attention of the authors and the editors that these are relevant issues:
1. This manuscript is not Article as noted in Line 1. It is a review paper, no more or less. Please change it.
2. Some figures are of poor quality. Figures 6 and 7 are presented with basic PowerPoint options (grey font color, very different font style as in the paper, etc.). I think some more effort can be expected.
Author Response
The review response is included in the word file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper can fit the scope of this journal.
The research issues addressed in this paper is interesting and practical.
The results are helpful for providing promising research directions for researchers.
I believe the subject of this paper can attract readers' attention.
Although this paper is readable and presented clearly, there is a minor organization problem.
In Section 1, there are too many paragraphs.
Please merge or reorganize this section to reduce the number of paragraphs.
Section 2 and Section 4 also has a similar problem.
Please merge or reorganize this section to reduce the number of paragraphs in Section 2 and Section 4 properly.
In Line 343-344, the VOSviewer software is mentioned. However, a brief introduction to VOSviewer software and the associated reference link or literature are missing.
Figure 4 can not be viewed clearly even if it is zoomed in. Quality of Figure 4 should be improved by recapturing the original image with higher resolution.
Figure 5 also suffers from a quality problem similar to Figure 4. Recapturing the original image with higher resolution is required for Figure 5.
In the following sentence in Line 406-408 as follows, a colon is missing:
"NE04 It is a term used to refer to the fourth generation of the electricity grid and describes the integration of information and communication technologies into the power grid to improve its energy efficiency and reliability [60,68]."
In the following sentence in Line 492-493 as follows, the associated reference literature is missing.
"Regarding energy management, applications such as Wattio or WeSmartPark help citizens control and optimize their energy consumption at home or at work."
Author Response
The review response is included in the word file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have dealt with each and every suggestions I have made. Consequently, the new version can be considered for publication within Electronics.
