The introduction provides a good, generalised background about what the author is going to discuss about the research point.

However, to make the introduction more substantial, the author should illustrate in his thesis statement the main idea of the Social Internet of Things (SIoT) and its relation to the humanisation.

The author did not define theoretically both the concepts relation of MIoT and SIoT.

Differentiate between the first contribution and the second one, as well as illustrating the relation between both contributions points on each others.

Is the two contribution results are only for a specific environment (Porto City) or can be generalised , as the author should have provided statistics to prove the importance of his POV.

The part of SIS paradigm needs to be introduced as a concept then illustrate the relation of the SIoT.

It was preferable discussing the effects differences of both (Social Networking) and (Social Internetworking) on IoT in general

The authors contribution part of MIoT regarding the reliability needs to be written in a way that clarify the problem, the excepted result before going deeply into the body of the contribution itself.

It was creative from the author in point 5.1 to start with the proposed IoT reliability equations before going into the other sub-points MIoT reliability, but the reason of choosing this kind of reliability mathematical architecture instead of previous proposed ones ? (i.e Mišić, Jelena & Misic, Vojislav & Banaie, Fatemeh. (2017). Reliable and Scalable Data Acquisition from IoT Domains. 1-6. 10.1109/GLOCOM.2017.8255001.)

The results and the statistics of the experiment reflects the authors' effort, however what if the same experiment was made with the same algorithm with different resources (OS - Programming Language)would the result be affected ?

Actually, Should the tester set a pre-defined requirements to come out with a this result ? as for mentioning the part 6.4 Resilience, the resilience rate can be affected based on the resource changing