Generic IoT for Smart Buildings and Field-Level Automation—Challenges, Threats, Approaches, and Solutions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper “Generic IoT for Smart Buildings and Field-level Automation - Challenges, Threats, Approaches and Solutions” aims to consolidate state-of-the-art information on Internet of Things (IoT) applications in smart homes and buildings, offering a comprehensive review of literature, case studies, and development trends in this area. The paper is well-organized and includes a detailed analysis of current challenges and solutions in the field of building automation, incorporating concepts like edge and fog computing, blockchain, and artificial intelligence.
However, upon reading the paper, it appears that it covers a wide range of topics without delving deeply into any of them. The paper only scratches the surface. The review should focus on topics related to the framework proposed by the author and provide ideas on how to address the challenges that arise.
Minor comments:
- It missed a wireless technology, as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology, in the review.
- Although a list of acronyms is provided, each one must be explained the first time it is used in the text: IoT, SWOT, DSM, DSR,…
- The references do not follow a common template. Some include the abbreviated name of the journal while others use the full name.
- There are some typos: Newtowrks
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I appreciate your comments and suggestions. They are valuable and open new perspective of looking on my paper. Moreover, they have helped me to improve the quality and value of it. Detail responses are provided below:
The paper “Generic IoT for Smart Buildings and Field-level Automation - Challenges, Threats, Approaches and Solutions” aims to consolidate state-of-the-art information on Internet of Things (IoT) applications in smart homes and buildings, offering a comprehensive review of literature, case studies, and development trends in this area. The paper is well-organized and includes a detailed analysis of current challenges and solutions in the field of building automation, incorporating concepts like edge and fog computing, blockchain, and artificial intelligence.
- However, upon reading the paper, it appears that it covers a wide range of topics without delving deeply into any of them. The paper only scratches the surface. The review should focus on topics related to the framework proposed by the author and provide ideas on how to address the challenges that arise.
Answer 1:
Thank you for this general comment and remark. However, this was the purpose of my review - to show the general thematic spectrum, indicating the directions of development determined by new technological possibilities, and to propose a general concept of generic IoT for smart home and building applications.
Considering the specific comments of the second reviewer, I introduced several new elements into the text that indirectly respond to this general comment. In the initial part - Introduction (subsection 1.3), I provided a short description of the organizational methodology of this review, sanctioning the selection of detailed areas and thematic selection of the publication. See the lines 179-203.
Additionally, in the final part - subsection 5.3 with a description of the SWOT analysis for the developed generic IoT framework, I introduced extensive information about potential future research areas for scientists and engineering groups, as a response to the weaknesses and threats identified in the SWOT analysis. See the lines 1089-1125.
In my opinion, these elements, together with the previously described analyzes of IoT innovations in smart home and building applications, partially or perhaps sufficiently provide ideas on how to address the challenges that arise.
Minor comments:
- It missed a wireless technology, as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology, in the review.
Answer 2:
Thank you for this notice and comment. This is very similar to one of the comments from the Reviewer 2. Therefore, I have added some additional information within the subsection 1.1 (lines 890-92) and other places in the text (the lines 294-298, 790-794, 878-881, 975-977 and 1008-1010) related to the BLE and other wireless technologies used in smart home and building applications (Z-Wave, ZigBee etc.). However, it should be emphasized that these types of technologies only support the implementation of selected automation functions, in particular indoor positioning, local exchange of information at field level and local measurement of operating parameters (light intensity, temperature, humidity, etc.).
These standards and protocols are not considered as elements of a generic IoT based primarily on the TCP/IP protocol. Therefore, only limited information about them is given in this review, only as elements of technologies that support distributed control networks at the lowest level.
- Although a list of acronyms is provided, each one must be explained the first time it is used in the text: IoT, SWOT, DSM, DSR,…
Answer 3:
Thank you for this comment. I have read the text again and verified firs uses of the acronyms. They are explained for all cases. Considering your comment – they have not been explained in the Abstract in previous version of the text. I have decided to add explanations there as well.
- The references do not follow a common template. Some include the abbreviated name of the journal while others use the full name.
Answer 4:
Thank you for your comment and in-depth analysis of the bibliography. I verified the descriptions of subsequent references and I admit that in some cases the titles of journals are shortened, in others they are not. I don't know what causes this - I have used and still use the automatic Mendeley tool with the MDPI citation style in my articles, including this review. Such forms of descriptions are dictated by the automatic tool.
Therefore, in the revised version, I manually changed the titles of the magazines, I hope I found and noticed all of them.
- There are some typos: Newtowrks
Answer 5:
Thank you for this remark. I have found this one and changed.
Moreover, I have verified the whole text considering grammar, typos etc.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the Author
This paper provides a review of the literature, case studies and analysis of selected development trends in smart home and building systems. However, there are several points that need to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Suggestions to improve the quality of the paper are provided below:
1. It was mentioned very briefly in Section 1.1 that different wireless communication technologies have become popular on the smart home and smart building market. However, the authors did not provide any examples of the applications of these wireless technologies within smart buildings. Please review the following established works for some examples of these applications as a good starting point.
Leveraging BLE technologies to support smart plug load automation
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109472
Leveraging BLE technologies to support building emergency response
10.1109/IUCC-CSS.2016.013
Leveraging WiFi technologies to support smart HVAC controls
https://doi.org/10.1145/2517351.2517370
Leveraging IoT sensing technologies to support occupant comfort modelling and smart HVAC controls
10.1088/1742-6596/2600/13/132004
Leveraging IoT sensing data for occupancy prediction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109689
2. Given that this is a review paper, the authors should take some time to discuss the methodology taken during the review. Some pointers include:
· What are the search terms that were used when searching for the relevant papers?
· What are the databases used during the search?
· What are some of the filtering criteria adopted when it comes to selecting the relevant papers for review (i.e., time, relevancy, scope, etc)?
3. In Section 4.2, the authors have indicated two important trends that are part of the development of using smart home and building systems, as well as operational maintenance support techniques for large BMS with IoT systems (i.e., Tactile Internet of Things and Digital Twin environment). Are the authors able to provide some quantitative evidence that these topics are indeed emerging trends that researchers should focus on?
4. The authors have highlighted some potential weaknesses and threats of the practical implementation of the presented generic IoT framework in smart home and BACS in Section 5.3. Please spend some time to suggest some potential area of research that can be undertaken by future researchers to resolve these weaknesses/threats.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are no major issues related to the manuscript's quality of English, except for some minor issues highlighted in my current set of comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I appreciate your comments, in-depth remarks and suggestions. They are valuable and open new perspective of looking on my paper. Moreover, they have helped me to improve the quality and value of it. Detail responses are provided below:
This paper provides a review of the literature, case studies and analysis of selected development trends in smart home and building systems. However, there are several points that need to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Suggestions to improve the quality of the paper are provided below:
It was mentioned very briefly in Section 1.1 that different wireless communication technologies have become popular on the smart home and smart building market. However, the authors did not provide any examples of the applications of these wireless technologies within smart buildings. Please review the following established works for some examples of these applications as a good starting point.
Leveraging BLE technologies to support smart plug load automation
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109472
Leveraging BLE technologies to support building emergency response
10.1109/IUCC-CSS.2016.013
Leveraging WiFi technologies to support smart HVAC controls
https://doi.org/10.1145/2517351.2517370
Leveraging IoT sensing technologies to support occupant comfort modelling and smart HVAC controls
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2600/13/132004
Leveraging IoT sensing data for occupancy prediction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109689
Answer 1:
Thank you for this comment and suggestion. I have added some additional information within the subsection 1.1 (lines 890-92) and other places in the text (the lines 294-298, 790-794, 878-881, 975-977 and 1008-1010).
I have used bibliography references based on your suggestions as well, expanding literature review considering BLE, ZigBee and Z-Wave smart home and building applications.
However, it should be emphasized that these types of technologies (BLE, ZigBee, Z-Wave etc.) only support the implementation of selected automation functions, in particular indoor positioning, local exchange of information at field level and local measurement of operating parameters (light intensity, temperature, humidity, etc.). These standards and protocols are not considered as elements of a generic IoT based primarily on the TCP/IP protocol.
Therefore, only limited information about them is given in this review, only as elements of technologies that support distributed control networks at the lowest field-level. They are not direct tools for IoT implementation with TCP/IP protocol integration.
- Given that this is a review paper, the authors should take some time to discuss the methodology taken during the review. Some pointers include:
- What are the search terms that were used when searching for the relevant papers?
- What are the databases used during the search?
- What are some of the filtering criteria adopted when it comes to selecting the relevant papers for review (i.e., time, relevancy, scope, etc)?
Answer 2:
That is very important remark – thank you for it. Based on this remark, I once again rethought the concept of the literature review, analyzing the main themes and key aspects. Taking advantage of the reviewer's suggestions, I added a new subsection 1.3 in the Introduction, explaining the most important elements of the methodology and organization of the review. See the lines: 179-203.
- In Section 4.2, the authors have indicated two important trends that are part of the development of using smart home and building systems, as well as operational maintenance support techniques for large BMS with IoT systems (i.e., Tactile Internet of Things and Digital Twin environment). Are the authors able to provide some quantitative evidence that these topics are indeed emerging trends that researchers should focus on?
Answer 3:
Thank you for this comment and suggestion. I have added some information related to the growing number of the scientific publications in last several years. I have verified popular and significant publication databases and bibliometric services, providing general information about the growing interest in these topics: “tactile internet smart building” as well as “digital twins smart building”. See the lines: 818-831.
- The authors have highlighted some potential weaknesses and threats of the practical implementation of the presented generic IoT framework in smart home and BACS in Section 5.3. Please spend some time to suggest some potential area of research that can be undertaken by future researchers to resolve these weaknesses/threats.
Answer 4:
This is very rational and significant remark. Thank you for it and suggestions.
Considering SWOT analysis results, I have provided additional information indicating potential research directions and activities necessary for reducing vulnerabilities and mitigating threats in short justifications/rationales. See the lines 1089-1125.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reviewing the new version of the paper, it can be seen that the author has taken into account the feedback received, but not all of it has been fully addressed:
1.- As the instructions for authors state in the case of reviews: “They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research”. I miss the part about recommendation for future research. To address this, the paper should include a summary/list of the current challenges to be solved in home and building automation. It can be placed before the presentation of the generic IoT framework. And explain how the proposed generic IoT framework could address (some of) these challenges.
2.- The author mentions that generic IoT has been discussed in three previous publications from 2013, 2017, and 2022. Could the author indicate how his framework differs from the previous ones?
3.-The generic IoT framework proposes 6 levels. For each level, it should be stated what the goal of the level is and what elements/technologies are involved.
4.-Consider revising the sentence "network layers discussed in Section 3" (line 980). I do not believe that network layers are discussed in Section 3.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I appreciate your additional comments and suggestions. They are more detailed and open some new perspectives of my submission. Detail responses are provided below:
After reviewing the new version of the paper, it can be seen that the author has taken into account the feedback received, but not all of it has been fully addressed:
1.- As the instructions for authors state in the case of reviews: “They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research”. I miss the part about recommendation for future research. To address this, the paper should include a summary/list of the current challenges to be solved in home and building automation. It can be placed before the presentation of the generic IoT framework. And explain how the proposed generic IoT framework could address (some of) these challenges.
Answer 1:
Dear Reviewer 1. I really appreciate your comment and suggestions. However, I would like to point out that according to the review paper guidelines in this paper an element of the summary of the challenges and directions of development of IoT networks in building automation is Section 5. It is devoted to the concept of a generic IoT framework, taking into account the problems, emerging directions of development and challenges identified earlier in Sections 2-4.
I would like to emphasize that, considering your detailed comments from the second stage of the review process (see subsequent answers below), the supplements and extended information have been provided in Section 5 and they fit into the suggested by you indications of new research directions, suggestions for development work and concepts supporting the further development of the integration of IoT technologies in smart home and building application.
According to your suggestions, I added goals and potential main directions of research and development in the next 6 mandatory levels of the framework. Additionally, I have indicated similar information for optional levels/elements.
I hope that this approach to a critical and creative summary of this review will be appreciated by you and the readers.
2.- The author mentions that generic IoT has been discussed in three previous publications from 2013, 2017, and 2022. Could the author indicate how his framework differs from the previous ones?
Answer 2:
Considering this remark and suggestions, I have extended analysis of the aforementioned publications, using them as a background for my contribution with the generic IoT framework. See the lines: 962-985.
3.-The generic IoT framework proposes 6 levels. For each level, it should be stated what the goal of the level is and what elements/technologies are involved.
Answer 3:
That is good remark. Bering it in mind, I have revised the subsections 5.1 and 5.2 providing some additional information regarding to goals/aims as well as possible research and development works considering several tools and platforms. See changes in Subsections 5.1 and 5.2.
4.-Consider revising the sentence "network layers discussed in Section 3" (line 980). I do not believe that network layers are discussed in Section 3.
Answer 4:
Thank you for this remark. Of course, they are mentioned and discussed in Section 2, Subsection 2. I have changed this information – moreover, now it is in line: 1007.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for taking the time to address my comments thoroughly and comprehensively. I believe all my comments have been adequately addressed, and the quality of the manuscript has increased significantly as a result. I have determined that the manuscript is now ready for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are no major issues related to the manuscript's quality of English, except for some minor issues that do not affect the clarity and flow of the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer comment
Thank you for taking the time to address my comments thoroughly and comprehensively. I believe all my comments have been adequately addressed, and the quality of the manuscript has increased significantly as a result. I have determined that the manuscript is now ready for publication.
Answer:
Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions form the 1st stage of the review process. Thanks to them, I had the opportunity to develop my "author's workshop" and acquire new skills, drawing attention to important aspects of review publications.
