Analysis of Low Cost Communication Technologies for V2I Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Needs substantial grammar review. Using ‘The 5G’ makes no sense. Rather use only 5G or ‘The 5G technology’. Line 17 rephrase ‘So it is needed a solution’ . Line 20 rephrase “it took place”. Line 36 rephrase “Capacity for communicate”. Line 48 rephrase “it is needed”. This is my feedback till page 2. So I recommend extensive english language editing.
Your experiments are analyzing features associated with V2I communication. My question is how does V2I perform better than already existing technologies? For example if you are analyzing speed limit, we do have efficiently accurate safety systems in modern cars that use cameras for traffic sign recognition. That can be way faster compared to IoT devices based on camera resolution. How can you argue that this method would be better ?
Secondly could you clarify the importance of a Co2 based in V2I communication ? How would cars communicating with each other use Co2 information and why ?
Please provide some compelling test cases that justify the usage of these three technological devices. Maybe some extensive review on how they can be integrated with classification techniques would be good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors propose a state of art analysis of V2I communication technologies.
The comparison between these solutions is done in terms of range and latency.
I have the following remarks that the authors could use to improve the quality of this paper.
-For V2I communication the cybersecurity aspect is very important. What about the cybersecurity for different V2I technologies?
-What about the multiparty effects. It is possible to give the evaluation of these solutions in different configurations?
-What about the interoperability between these technologies?
-There are several errors " error !reference source not found".
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The main contribution of the paper seems to be the experimental tests made by using different low cost radio technologies.The experimental tests should be more detailed, and not simply reminding a previous paper. Which is the novelty of this paper compared to the previous ones?
The references are often not corrently reported in the paper (see the error message in the text... do the auhtors read the paper before sending?). In addition, a concrete review of previous comparison of technologies for V2I should be addressed in the introduction.
Another flaw of the paper is surely not citing the VLC technology, which is seen as a promising technology for V2I in the very next future. See the works by N. Tassadaq et al. on VLC, if you want to report expertimental test on this field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing most of my concerns. I would recommend one more round of language editing. Here is what I found in the abstract that needs addressing.
"The two main positive effects of its integration are the improvement of road safety and the reduction of pollutant emissions ".
"So, a solution is required, which can improve communication reliability such that, if the 5G would fail, the short/middle range technology integrated with the system will lead the vehicle with V2I communication. This integration would provide a reliable and strong solution."
"In this work, an analysis of different available communication technologies has been carried out with a short/middle range. The selection criteria being lower costs and easy integration with 5G technology. "
"a validation methodology was developed, which enabled us to evaluate the performance of V2I applications."
"We observed a comparatively higher performance of the module nRF24L01+ for V2I communication."
I believe that the entire document also has minor changes like the one's I mentioned above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have almost revised the paper according to the reviewer's suggestions. The state of the art is still missing important and recent papers, which, similarly to this one, report experimentation of VLC for V2I, e.g., "IEEE 802.15.7-Compliant Ultra-Low Latency Relaying VLC System for Safety-Critical ITS" in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 12040-12051, Dec. 2019.
A comparison with the appropriated state of the art helps to determine how much the proposed paper is novel and which is the main contribution of the authors to the scientific community in the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Most changes have been addressed.
