Cognitive Pervasive Service Composition Applied to Predatory Crime Deterrence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting. The research problem is ambitious. I appreciate that the issues addressed are current, timeless, ambitious and bold. I also like the idea of ​​designing a solution and using ubiquitous technology.
I have comments on the concept of the manuscript. The theoretical background is sufficiently analyzed and supported by literature. Ubiquitous technologies will take ambient intelligence (AmI). Ubiquitous technologies also belong to the groups of AmI predictors. The authors should also mention AmI. The analyzed platforms create AmI, so it is possible to create a functional smart environment. Ambient intelligence represents a multidisciplinary approach, integrating innovative pervasive technologies and systems that form an ecosystem, which, based on collected, transformed, analysed and evaluated data, respond to user requirements intelligently.
I recommend adjusting the structure of the manuscript in accordance with the usual rules for writing scientific articles: Introduction, Theoretical background, Methodology and research methods (data) - it is not clear from the manuscript what are the methods and methodology used. In Part 3.1: there are hypotheses. But these are not hypotheses from a scientific point of view. A distinction must be made between the research assumption, the research question and the hypothesis. The hypothesis is an exact assumption. The hypotheses are not properly formulated. Results - (I agree 6. Implementation and Results). Discussion - I recommend a separate section for such important results. The current debate seems vague to me. It's just a summary. The discussion needs to be improved and compared with the views of other authors. The design and use of technology carries many risks. It is advisable to at least draw attention to them if they are not the subject of research. The population may also be concerned about privacy. The initial investment can be high. The publication raises many questions. Which should at least be mentioned in the discussion and in the limits.Research limits are also included. Conclusion - separate part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes a ongoing research (at least, so it seems) regarding the use of a cognitive architecture based on a cognitive pervasive service composition applied to security in cities, namely, the problem of public insecurity due to robbery and other crimes.

The title should have this purpose in its description; avoiding a generic description and pointing to the reader to the case study presented. 

Introduction and bibliography seems generally adequate; however Seminal work by "Newell, Allen. Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, 1994." is missing and should be a reference. 

Section 2 with five pages is too long and should be reduced. It is suggested that a shorter description of the concepts and examples (eg COPERNIC) would benefit the reading.

Section 3 should be revised to avoid generalizations such as in section 3.1 line 296 "...with our approach is possible to build solutions to complex problems much like our human mind produces them". Hypothesis should be more precise and focused on the case study presented. The proposal section 3.2 mentions the CA developed (lines 317,318) and referenced previously (lines 43,44). 

The protocols section 4 points to references, one of which was not found (45) a PhD thesis. It was not clear to me the purpose of this section; could be included in section 2 or 3 perhaps?

Section 5, Case Study, presents again a subsection 5.2 with the same designation as 3.1 Objective and general hypotheses; this should be revised. And in section 5.2, the detailed description of the agents, should be in a subsection of its own; the organization of this section needs a major revision.

Sections 6 and 7 lack detail on implementation and specially on the results of simulations performed. Figures 5 and 6 would benefit of using other symbols instead of colours, to avoid black&white printing or colour blind readers. Blue, red and green circles could be replaced with triangles, squares or other symbol.

At last, after a long and detailed description of the architecture and all concepts, it is rather disappointing the  outcome; the discussion is poor and the examples described do not emphasize the merits of the model. This is a very interesting area of research but more work is needed to justify the results claimed and the merits of the proposed application.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have incorporated my comments sufficiently. I agree. I request that they adjust the order of the Discussion and Conclusion chapters. The conclusion is the last. Correct order: Results, Discussion, Conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate the feedback, and we have carried out the following changes for a better understanding/comprehension by the readers.

We have adjust the order of the Discussion and Conclusion chapters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have addressed several of the issues appointed in the preliminary first review. This aspect must be noted.

However, it must be said that the paper was not revised properly as requested and further work must be done in order to be accepted.

Adding a discussion section (8) after the conclusions section (7) reflects the way that Authors have tried to improve the paper. A full revision is needed in order to the paper be accepted, otherwise will be rejected.

Scientific papers follow a well defined structure and it is recommend to Authors to review the guidelines of this and other Journals and make a self review before resending the paper. There are sentences needing review, such as line 551. 

The research presented has its merits; however it should not be overemphasised, since it is a model and simulation, not an implementation with real world results. As such, this should be stressed and noted, both in the abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate the feedback, and we have carried out the following changes for a better understanding/comprehension by the readers.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx