Using Blockchain in the Registration and Authentication of a Carpooling Application: From Review to Proposal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is well organized and structured. The list of references contains 57 links, which is enough for a review. The article contains an analysis that summarizing the experience.

To improve this article

[page 2] To improve perception, it is advisable to add illustrations.

[page 8-9] Fig. 2-3 there is no sense in these screenshots. No benefit for readers. Please remove them.

[page 9, line 369] please tell more about FaceID – provide links to literature or make a couple of drawings with recognition algorithms or classification of methods

[page 10] there is no sense in these code snippets. No benefit for readers (Fig. 4-6)

[page 11, line 414] there is no sense in the software code (Fig. 7), please tell about the IP-addresses

 [page 15] please add more specific information (line 561-566)

I support this article after minor revisions.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is really interesting as it uses Blockchain for real-world robust application. The following comments can be helpful for the authors to upgrade the level of scientific presentation.

 

(1) ABSTRACT is well-written, however, it is more desirable to mention major findings after “The findings from the review were organized and assessed to 26 identify key aspects for improving user authentication in a system based on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and utilizing blockchain technology, recognized for its security and data integrity.”  

 

(2) in INTRODUCTION, it could be informative if the authors mention some drawbacks of having no access to authorized carpooling by relying on verified statistics released by authorities or governmental agencies.

 

(3) In some cities such as Istanbul, water carpooling (or, boatpooling) can be also regarded for scientific reviews. In case of reported research in this field, please cite them.

 

(4) Who is/are responsible for privacy of individuals (both drivers and passengers) if the private sector deals with these tools and applications?

 

(5) SECTION 2 and first paragraphs of SECTION 3 provide redundant information without clear and scientific on insights on the previous works reported in the literature. Thus, it would be more desirable if the authors used tables or figures for these parts. In my mind, subsections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 are the best parts to present shared transportation and authorized tools as they are more related.

 

(6)  Figure 1 presents interesting structure, please provide more details.

 

(7) The authors cited [53] without mentioning the findings and or pros and cons. This research seems interesting and can be useful for this review to give great insights on the topic.

 

(8)  

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The results of the present work are not mentioned in the abstract. What is the result of the present work at all?
2. There are too many and inappropriate keywords. Frequently used words in the text that are not in the title and abstract should be used.
3. A "Nomenclature" is needed.
4. The innovation of the present work and the scientific gap of previous works are not clearly and specifically stated.
5. The parameters under study are not mentioned at the end of the introduction or abstract and conclusion.
6. The present work is added to Table 1 and technical comparison and analysis should be made with them.
7. The numbering of figures is not correct and has gone from Figure 8 to Figure 12!
8. The references are not in the same format. Reference 2 has neither a date nor a DOI.
9. The literature review part is not up to date and there are very few 2023 articles and no 2024 articles.
9. Overall, the present work is not in the format and standard of a journal article and is more like a technical report.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English language is not good.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This paper explores the benefits of improving the authentication processes for passengers and drivers within a shared transportation system to minimize information security risks.  The topic of this paper is interesting.

1. Methodology: why choosing Ethereum and Solidity, please describve their technical advantages and how they meet the requirements.

2. Figure 4-7 are not recommend, pseudocode may be better.

3 . figure 2 and 3 should be combined.

4. The first paragraph of the conclusion is very strange. Please revise.

5. A survey of user experience may improve the value of the study

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Consider revising the abstract to include a summary of the proposed module's impact or advantages (e.g., increased security, scalability, or user adoption).

Include more recent references to ensure the work reflects the current state of blockchain applications, particularly in shared mobility and user authentication.

Clarify why Ethereum was chosen over alternative blockchain platforms for scalability and environmental impact. Including a brief comparison of other platforms (e.g., Hyperledger, Tezos) could strengthen this decision.

The paper could address potential implementation challenges in real-world scenarios.

The diagrams could benefit from more annotations to explain how these steps ensure security and scalability.

Provide more specific examples of user scenarios or use cases (e.g., how a driver benefits from FaceID authentication in terms of trust-building or operational efficiency).

The conclusions restate the paper's contributions but do not critically evaluate the limitations of the proposed system. A more reflective discussion could strengthen the credibility of the work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally good. However, a thorough language review or professional proofreading is recommended to ensure consistency and polish.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks dear authors for your revision

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the revision.