Low-Cost, Open Source IoT-Based SCADA System Design Using Thinger.IO and ESP32 Thing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is technically sound. Some comments:
Re-phrase abstract since it is too much technical and few introductory. Insert paper outline at the end of Introduction. Improve graphical presentation (e.g., reduce Fig.4 size, rotate Fig. 10, blank GPS position at the bottom of Figs. 13-14). Embed future work at the end of Conclusion. Improve bibliography (only 25 references among which few journals and lot of URLs). Cite <Sheng, Zhengguo, et al. "Recent advances in industrial wireless sensor networks toward efficient management in IoT." IEEE access 3 (2015): 622-637.> and <Fortino, Giancarlo, Claudio Savaglio, and Mengchu Zhou. "Toward opportunistic services for the industrial Internet of Things." 2017 13th IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2017.> as general references for Industrial IoT, and <Boyer, Stuart A. SCADA: supervisory control and data acquisition. International Society of Automation, 2009> as milestone for SCADA. Unify citation quotes style within bibliography (e.g., see 11 and 12). Clarify wheter exists authors previous works related to the proposal and, in case, report their relationships. Perform a deep proof-reading to fix minors and typos (e.g., "WiFi"->Wi-Fi; missing blank space between citation "[19],[23],[15]"; remove "Low cost" among keywords").
Author Response
Please see the attached PDF file. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no research problem in the paper to solve. All mentioned tools are applied the same way as they were purposed for. So I suggest that the scientific impact of the paper is the minimal one.
The location of all field components of the system is limited by WiFi router connection distance. It seems many applications will need more distance (and 3G/4G modem instead of WiFi).
Some of conclusions seem not sound, for example, about cost, reliability and proposed applications:
1. The calculated cost of the designed system does not include box cases for some of the hardware components. Even for WiFi router in outdoor environment a special box should be considered.
2. The reliability of the proposed system implementation is not proved for critical assets of Oil and Gas, Traffic Control and some other mentioned applications.
3. The proposed design of the system is too weak from information security point of view for serious applications such as Oil and Gas, Traffic Control and some other. Such system will be hacked in hours for sure if it will be connected to the Internet. Data and control commands are not protected against an adversary.
I suppose some justifications about cost, security and reliability should be made in final revision of the text to highlight actual value of the proposed system.
Author Response
Please see the attached PDF file. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
ok, double check novel parts looking for minors (e.g., introduce IoT acronym at line 14 instead of 15, re-phrase "The proposed SCADA system in this work " in "The SCADA system proposed n this work", edit "approached in different techniques" in "approached in different techniques", etc.) for the sake of readability
Author Response
Point 1: ok, double check novel parts looking for minors (e.g., introduce IoT acronym at line 14 instead of 15.
Response 1: This has been done.Thank you very much for taking some time out of your busy schedule to go through this work again and for providing these invaluable comments and feedbacks. Your effort is much appreciated.
Point 2: re-phrase "The proposed SCADA system in this work " in "The SCADA system proposed in this work".
Response 2: This has been done.
Point 3: edit "approached in different techniques" in "approached in different techniques", etc.) for the sake of readability.
Response 3: This section has been edited for readability as advised. We have also done a deep proofreading to improve the readability of the entire paper. Thank you once again.