Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessReview

Peer-Review Record

IoT-Based Big Data Secure Transmission and Management over Cloud System: A Healthcare Digital Twin Scenario

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(16), 9165; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13169165

by Christos L. Stergiou^*

, Maria P. Koidou and Konstantinos E. Psannis^*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Mudassir Khan

Reviewer 3:

Yudhvir Singh

Reviewer 4:

ALI ALWAN

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(16), 9165; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13169165

Submission received: 14 March 2023 / Revised: 5 August 2023 / Accepted: 8 August 2023 / Published: 11 August 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Data Analytics in Smart Healthcare)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors raise an interesting topic related to IoT and in this particular case in healthcare applications.
In the Introduction, the authors clearly show the reason for their research, broadly referring to other works, other teams, thus demonstrating the importance of the topic.
The next chapter is a presentation, a list of other works on this subject. This has been shown attractively in tabular form. This certainly makes it easier for the reader to systematize and analyze it.
Chapter 3 raises my doubts. Each of the subsections is extremely short. In my opinion, either combine them or develop each of them.
I don't have much to say about the next chapter. Clearly presented.
Chapter 6 raises my doubts. It is in fact a presentation of the authors' research results. Without belittling the importance of their work, I think that this chapter should be refined and extended so that it would be able to better show good research work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Author,

Kindly work on the following comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The safety and security of the data and technique is not properly described. The experiments not clearly show success rate of technique. Data taken seems to be in appropriate described. Moderate changes are needed from language point of view.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Figure 1. The number of connected works has changed throughout time.

Figure 1's title is not suitable and should be changed to a more relevant and accurate title!

The vertical axis legend is missing. I know the numbers in the vertical axis represent the number of papers published in each period. A legend (number of sheets) should be included in the figure.

The following paragraphs present the papers that we filtered out and contributed significantly to our study.

It is unclear how these papers/studies have been filtered out. What are the criteria used to filter out the relevant studies? You should explain those criteria to help readers understand why these works/studies have been considered!

The conclusion of this work provides future research directions concerning energy-saving problems of wireless networks based on the IoT. It also discusses the possible issues of the future use of IoT.

The above two sentences have been written on lines 139 and 14 as part of the discussion of the work in [17]. I don’t think this is the right place for these sentences to be placed in the discussion of previous work! The discussion shouldn’t be about the future work of the researcher. Instead, it should focus on the paper's work and the contribution made to that work!

I’m not quite satisfied with the way the author discussed the previous works between lines 136 and 152. I would suggest rephrasing this paragraph and improving its quality. You should first address the issues highlighted in each work, then explain how they have been solved. You should also explain the limitations of these works. Most importantly, these works must be discussed in chronological order starting from oldest to newest works. For instance, [17] was published in 2017 and discussed first. In contrast, the work in [18] was published in 2015, and the work in [20] have been published in 2017. Thus, the time order of these works is incorrect!

Similarly, the discussion of the previous works in [21], [22], and [23] is not properly ordered. The work in [21] was published in 2015, the work in [22] was published in 2010, and the work in [23] was published in 2015.

The same issue was found in the discussion on the use of Internet of Things technology to operate video surveillance systems (lines 162- 191). The order of the previous works is incorrect! You must reorder them based on time (oldest to latest).

It is the same issue found in the discussion for advanced scalable Media-based smart Big Data on Intelligent Cloud Computing systems (lines 192-221). The order of the previous works is incorrect! You must reorder them based on the time from oldest to newest.

Reorder the entire paragraph and examine the pros and cons of each work in-depth.

Table 1. Mapping Problems Against Referenced Solutions.

I can’t see any values in Table 1. The text explains all of the information given in Table 1. The problems and solutions of all works are discussed in the text. Table 1 repeats the same thing using different words! It would be helpful if you provided more information that is not included in the text. These details should be elicited from those papers and readers cannot identify them straightforwardly!

You must be consistent with Tele-phones or Telephones. (See lines 228 and 238)!

Also, Bio-metric, or Biometric?

In section 3, you must explain the devices based on their order. The order is different!

Table 2. Internet of Things Contributions to Monitoring Systems.

It is unclear what the values a, b, c, d, and e mean in Table 2. I cannot find the meaning of these letters in the text!

Figure 2. Architecture Comparison & Contribution.

What criteria were used to identify the 6 articles presented in Figure 2? Why have these 6 articles been chosen? What makes them suitable for this study?

Figure 2 requires a more in-depth discussion. It is unclear why these 6 articles were selected.

Figure 3 is trivial and should be removed! It is merely copied/pasted from the sources People can refer directly to those papers and find out about these figures.

5.3. Algorithm Approach

Section 5.3's name is inappropriate! What do you mean by an Algorithm Approach? How come these two terms are combined in this way? Approach and Algorithm are two different terms for the same thing! We use them interchangeably!

What are the input and output of the algorithm presented on page 15? The algorithm has no name and is not even numbered!

Figure 4 illustrates the data produced and transmitted through the procedure with the proposed algorithm and a conventional algorithm. Which conventional algorithm has been used? Why has this algorithm been used in the comparison? Why is the work not compared against the latest works/algorithms?

What is the time unit in Figure 4? Milliseconds? Seconds? Minutes? Hours?

The paper is not suitable for publication for the following reasons

1. The problem statement is trivial and not properly addressed.

2. The work lacks contributions. There is no novel idea in the work, so it cannot be appreciated. If you think your work is new, you must elaborate on it. You must describe how your proposed solution is better than the latest solutions. The comparison with the conventional algorithm is inadequate!

3. The discussion of the previous works is miserable!

4. The experimental results are not sufficient to draw a solid conclusion about the proposed work.

5. The structure and the organization of the paper are ill-formed.

6. The comparison is limited to a conventional algorithm. The work must be compared to the latest relevant works.

7. The list of references is not sufficient and the most recent relevant works should be included. Below are some recent related works to be included in the paper

https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/article/304908

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-22959-6_4

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jhe/2022/5337733/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050920308905?via%3Dihub

The abstract needs improvement. You should add some discussion of the work's findings.
Section 3 also needs major modifications to improve its quality. Video Monitoring devices should be discussed in-depth and in relation to the paper's topic. This could be done by relating the issues addressed in this paper and these devices.
Section 4 also needs significant improvement. It is very short and most texts are trivial.
The algorithm needs further elaboration. The algorithm steps should be carefully discussed and the added additional steps should be discussed deliberately. The algorithm steps must be numbered.
Section 6 should give the experiment settingThere is little discussion of the experimental results. You should elaborate on the results and discuss them in more detail. Most importantly, you should explain why your algorithm outperforms previous algorithms. What factors might influence the algorithm's performance?
You should use at least one data set to test the algorithm and support the work conclusion.
The paper must be revised and resubmitted for a second round of review before any recommendations can be made.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks to authors for the detailed response and additions I read through the comments and skimmed the revised PDF, The updates did improve the paper a lot. I would be happy to recommend this paper for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your helpful comments on the paper. We appreciate the effort you put on, and the time you devoted to writing your suggestions. We believe, we have been able to address all your comments and correct any deficiencies you have pointed out.

Thanks to authors for the detailed response and additions I read through the comments and skimmed the revised PDF, The updates did improve the paper a lot. I would be happy to recommend this paper for publication.

Thank you for this direction. We appreciate your comment. We restructured the paper in a way that makes it easier to understand. Also, we have tried to improve the English grammatical errors of the paper.

The whole corrections or additions we have made in the paper we noticed with blue color.

Thank you very much for your attention and kind consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Christos L. Stergiou

Post-Doc. University of Macedonia

Dept. of Applied Informatics

University of Macedonia

Thessaloniki, Greece

Email: c.stergiou@uom.edu.gr

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “Secure Integration of IoT & Digital Twins”

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/1N3J910V3M

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “Application of Data Analytics in Smart Healthcare”

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/Application_Data_Analytics_Smart_Healthcare

Dr. Maria Koidou

Post-Doc. University of Macedonia

Dept. of Applied Informatics

University of Macedonia

Thessaloniki, Greece

Email: maria_koidou@yahoo.gr

Prof. Kostas E. Psannis

Associate Editor IEEE Access

Associate Editor IEEE Com Letters

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “Secure Integration of IoT & Digital Twins”

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/1N3J910V3M

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “Application of Data Analytics in Smart Healthcare”

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/Application_Data_Analytics_Smart_Healthcare

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “Advancements in QoS/QoE for Future Networks and Their Applications” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/PPMUH0SF3O

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “Application of Data Analytics in Smart Healthcare” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/Application_Data_Analytics_Smart_Healthcare

Guest Editor MDPI Telecom Special Issue “Papers from the 4th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2021)” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/telecom/special_issues/SI_WSCE2021

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Topical Collection “5G Networks: Optimization, Machine Learning and Blockchain Technologies II” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/sections/computing_artificial_intelligence

Guest Editor MDPI Telecom Special Issue “6G Wireless Communication Systems” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/telecom/special_issues/6g_wireless_communication

Guest Editor MDPI Sensors Special Issue “Compressive Sensing-Based IoT Applications” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/special_issues/Compressive_Sensing_IoT

Guest Editor MDPI Information Special Issue “ICCCI 2020&2021: Advances in Baseband Signal Processing, Circuit Designs, and Communications” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/ICCCI_2020

Guest Editor MDPI Applied Sciences Special Issue “5G Networks: Optimization, Machine Learning And Blockchain Technologies” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/5G_blockchain

Guest Editor MDPI Sensors Special Issue “6G Wireless Communication Systems” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/special_issues/6g_wireless_communication_systems’

Guest Editor MDPI Telecom Special Issue “Papers from the 4th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2021)” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/telecom/special_issues/SI_WSCE2021

Dept. of Applied Informatics

University of Macedonia

Thessaloniki, Greece

Email: kpsannis@uom.edu.gr

Tel: +30 2310 891 737

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

I reviewed the revised version of the manuscript and checked all the corrections made on the paper based on my comments/suggestions.

I believe that the changes made in response to my comments and suggestions have greatly improved the clarity and coherence of the paper. However, there are a few more corrections that should be made before move forward with the publication of the manuscript. I request the authors to address the following points:

1. The input and output of Algorithms 1 and 2 must be included in the algorithms description.

2. The word approach in (4.5. Video/image transmission and processing Algorithm Approach) must be removed.

3. I have noticed that the conclusion section appears to be excessively long, which may affect the overall readability and clarity of the paper. To ensure that readers can grasp the key takeaways more effectively, I suggest shortening the conclusion section. A concise and focused conclusion will help highlight the most critical findings and contributions of your research without overwhelming the reader with excessive details. It should provide a clear and impactful summary of your study's outcomes and their implications.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I reviewed the revised version of the manuscript and checked all the corrections made on the paper based on my comments/suggestions.

Thank you for your comments. We really appreciate it. We have provided revised text.

I believe that the changes made in response to my comments and suggestions have greatly improved the clarity and coherence of the paper. However, there are a few more corrections that should be made before move forward with the publication of the manuscript. I request the authors to address the following points:

The input and output of Algorithms 1 and 2 must be included in the algorithms description.

Thank you for your comments. We really appreciate it. We have provided a better description of Algorithms 1 and 2 by adding more text explaining the input and output of each algorithm. We have endeavored to extend and modify the discussion of this part of our study.

[Subsection 4.4, Paragraph 11]

The encryption and decryption operations of the first encryption algorithm are denoted in Algorithm 1 by the functions encryptWithAlgorithm1() and decryptWithAlgorithm1(), respectively. The encryption and decryption functions of the second encryption algorithm are represented, respectively, by the functions encryptWithAlgorithm2() and decryptWithAlgorithm2(). The actual encryption and decryption methods we want to employ each time, such as AES, RSA, or any other encryption algorithms of our choice, can be substituted for the aforementioned function names in the suggested scenario. The input of Algorithm 1 gets the transmitted data of video/image before encryption and the output is the transmitted data of video/image after encrypted and ready to be transmitted. Also, in the reverse procedure, Algorithm 1 gets the encrypted transmitted data of video/image and the output is the decrypted transmitted data of video/image ready to be used.

[Subsection 4.5, Paragraph 5]

Specifically, Algorithm 2 represents the whole procedure implemented by our proposed equation (1) consisting of our study on previous works [7] [10] [11] [52] [61]. As a result, In Algorithm 2, we compare the data from the First Time Window to the functions that depict the change in the value of each component of the equation (1). The suggested algorithm "calls" the value of the Packet Loss Rate, Round Trip Time, Signal to Interface, and Noise Ratio of each loop in a limited number of loops while the time is "paused", all from the client that transmits and/or analyzes the video/image. Continuously, count on equation (1) the algorithm calculates the better way to transmit and/or process the video/image by choosing a calculation scenario relying on the type of the transmitted and/or processed video/image. Inside a loop function which is repeated until the value of b_LoA is greater or equal than the value of , then the calculation takes as many times as the random variable x is greater or equal to the value k, which is the sequence number of the particular transmission/procession. When the loop function ends, the particular video/image starts to be transmitted/processed to the client. Due to the requirement for a rapid response to the client's request, the proposed algorithm's process is predicted to take less than one minute. The input of Algorithm 2 based on three values that are necessary for the operation of the algorithm, first, the value of the packet loss rate (PL) count on the sequence number (k) of each round, second, the value of the round trip time count on the sequence number (k) of each round, and third, the value of the signal-to-interference and noise ratio count on the sequence number (k) of each round. Additionally, as an input the Algorithm 2 gets any additionally information added from each user of the system. From the other hand, the output of Algorithm 2 extracts the transmission data of the video/image transmitted each time through the system.

The word approach in (4.5. Video/image transmission and processing Algorithm Approach) must be removed.

Thank you for your comments. We really appreciate it. We have removed the word approach from the title of subsection 4.5.

I have noticed that the conclusion section appears to be excessively long, which may affect the overall readability and clarity of the paper. To ensure that readers can grasp the key takeaways more effectively, I suggest shortening the conclusion section. A concise and focused conclusion will help highlight the most critical findings and contributions of your research without overwhelming the reader with excessive details. It should provide a clear and impactful summary of your study's outcomes and their implications.

Thank you for your comments. We really appreciate it. We have provided a better conclusion section by reducing its size and make it more focused to the conclusions of our work.