A Traceable Online Insurance Claims System Based on Blockchain and Smart Contract Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper studies traceable online insurance claims systems based on blockchain and smart contract technology.

This article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The research is timely and worthwhile. The research problem is clearly defined. The authors provide fresh insight into the field.

I hope you find the following observations helpful:

Structure: Articles should be reformatted according to a standard structure, which is set out in the instructions for authors of the journal (sections are Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussions, Conclusion). See new template. The abstract should be improved.

Results: Perhaps it is better to visualize in more charts based on statistical methods of calculation. In my opinion, it may be better to provide the results of testing these methods (if any) in the Results section.

Need to revise and check citations in the text and in the references section. I suggest you add this reference: Shakhovska N., Fedushko S., Greguš ml. M., Melnykova N., Shvorob I., Syerov Yu. Big Data analysis in development of personalized medical system. Procedia Computer Science, Volume 160, 2019, Pages 229-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.461

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments:

This paper studies traceable online insurance claims systems based on blockchain and smart contract technology.

This article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The research is timely and worthwhile. The research problem is clearly defined. The authors provide fresh insight into the field.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s positive comments.

I hope you find the following observations helpful:

Structure: Articles should be reformatted according to a standard structure, which is set out in the instructions for authors of the journal (sections are Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussions, Conclusion). See new template. The abstract should be improved.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the format according to the latest sustainability template, and have also modified the abstract, with the red font in the manuscript.

Results: Perhaps it is better to visualize in more charts based on statistical methods of calculation. In my opinion, it may be better to provide the results of testing these methods (if any) in the Results section.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. In this research, we propose the conceptual architecture of the entire system, as well as the pseudo-code and mathematical mechanism of the system. In addition, we also use BAN logic to prove the safety of the system and present academic performance data. We will conduct more detailed research tests in future extended research.

Need to revise and check citations in the text and the references section. I suggest you add this reference: Shakhovska N., Fedushko S., Greguš ml. M., Melnykova N., Shvorob I., Syerov Yu. Big Data analysis in the development of the personalized medical systems. Procedia Computer Science, Volume 160, 2019, Pages 229-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.461

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have added the suggested reference in Ref. 21, with the red font.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Firstly, I must tell you that your manuscript is so interest and mean an interesting view of this area.

After review your article I have some commentaries in order to improve the manuscript's quality for future readers.

1.- Abstract: This section is longer than recommended in instructions (200 words).

Line 19, please change "." by "," ([...]complex services. Take life[...]") 

Please, change some lines of your abstract because are a literal copy of sentences from the introduction.

2.-Introduction:

In order to facilitate the comprehension o ideas exposed in the introduction, could be an interesting idea to name the advantages of blockchain in a clear way to understand them. In example: i) advantage 1, ii) advantage ii, etc. The way that you use in your manuscript makes that the advantages are expressed in a confusing way.

2. Preliminary (2.2. ECDSA) 

The way you expressed the equation included in this section could generate confusion in future readers.

And Could you separate the equation from the following phrase? (Line 301 to 304)

3. Preliminary (2.4. Hyperledger Fabric) 

Please include the name of the programming language owners

4.- 3.2. Notation

You have included the section on notations in section 3 but since it refers to a series of acronyms used in the processes described it should be changed and included in section 2 (Preliminary, maybe as section 2.5.).

The way it is now included generates confusion

5.- Figure 2. 

Honestly, I think this figure is really a table Please structure the information included in figure 2 as a table.

6.- Lines 629-630.

Exists 2 lines empty, please fix it 

7.- Tables.

the tables are too far away from the text they refer to, please place them closer.

I have also noticed that the titles of tables 1 and 2 are located at the top of the table, while the title of table 3 is located at the top.

Please check it and adjust it to what is required by the journal.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 comments:

Dear authors

Firstly, I must tell you that your manuscript is so interest and mean an interesting view of this area.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s positive comments.

After review your article I have some commentaries in order to improve the manuscript's quality for future readers.

1.- Abstract: This section is longer than recommended in the instructions (200 words).

Line 19, please change "." by "," ([...]complex services. Take life[...]")

Please, change some lines of your abstract because are a literal copy of sentences from the introduction.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified the abstract, with the red font in the manuscript.

2.-Introduction:

In order to facilitate the comprehension of ideas exposed in the introduction, could be an interesting idea to name the advantages of blockchain in a clear way to understand them. In example: i) advantage 1, ii) advantage ii, etc. The way that you use in your manuscript makes that the advantages are expressed in a confusing way.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified to present relevant advantages by tick, with the red font in the manuscript.

2. Preliminary (2.2. ECDSA)

The way you expressed the equation included in this section could generate confusion in future readers.

And Could you separate the equation from the following phrase? (Line 301 to 304)

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified the presentation of related content in this section, with the red font.

3. Preliminary (2.4. Hyperledger Fabric)

Please include the name of the programming language owners

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have added the related description in this section, with the red font.

4.- 3.2. Notation

You have included the section on notations in section 3 but since it refers to a series of acronyms used in the processes described it should be changed and included in section 2 (Preliminary, maybe as section 2.5.).

The way it is now included generates confusion

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Section 3.2 refers to the custom symbol used in the method we proposed in section 3, so we think it is appropriate to put it in this position. We have also revised the description of section 3.2, with the red font.

5.- Figure 2.

Honestly, I think this figure is really a table Please structure the information included in figure 2 as a table.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified Figure 2 to Table 1, with the red font.

6.- Lines 629-630.

Exists 2 lines empty, please fix it

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have fixed it.

7.- Tables.

the tables are too far away from the text they refer to, please place them closer.

I have also noticed that the titles of tables 1 and 2 are located at the top of the table, while the title of table 3 is located at the top.

Please check it and adjust it to what is required by the journal.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have fixed related issues. As for the situation where the table and content are relatively separated, it is because we try to present the completeness of the table and not be cut into two pages.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to read “A traceable online insurance claims system based on blockchain and smart contract technology”—the attempts to develop an online insurance claims system based on blockchain and smart contract technology. I have the following comments:

• The abstract is more like a study than a research article abstract. It needs to be completely revised. The abstract can do without the first 6 lines.
• The problem is not evident from the abstract, or why is there a need to develop such a system?
• I cant see the relation between internet insurance and medical institutions in the abstract; please revise.
• Please provide the full form of EMR in keywords
• Hyperledger Fabric is a keyword but no mention in the abstract. Is this important? If yes, it must be presented in abstract
• The relevance of the paper to sustainability is not clear. The authors need to revise the paper with a specific focus on sustainability. The word sustainability is not mentioned at all in the paper.
• There is a serious lack of literature review in the paper. From lines 44 to 77 (almost one page), there is only one reference where many claims are made. These need to be supported by scholarly references
• The problem is presented without any context and scholarly backing in the introduction. This needs revision
• The bulk of references are presented in lines 88 and 98 for a very basic definition, and it looks like these are added just for counts, not value. The authors need to study relevant papers and support their study with relevant references.
• Again from the introduction, the link between medical institutions and internet insurance is not clear. This weakens the need to conduct this study.
• I think the objectives of the paper are a bit ambitious, and the authors have focused on the basic functions of blockchains than their application in the study area. Please revise and relate to the topic.
• In section 2 (preliminary) the link to online insurance is not clear. Therefore, this section again focuses on the functions of blockchains.
• The smart contract aspect is not well elaborated in the paper.
• When presenting the codes, establishing and discussing the relevance to medical institutions and internet insurance will help improve the writing of the paper. Please focus on this
• The paper is all about codes and algorithms, and no proper discussion is presented in the paper. Even in the section named discussion, there are a lot of tables and no real discussion. This is a serious weakness of the paper. The author needs to focus on the discussion part of the paper.
• Please highlight the futuristic expansion of the study and the limitations in conclusion.

Thanks

Author Response

Reviewer 3 comments:

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to read “A traceable online insurance claims system based on blockchain and smart contract technology”—the attempts to develop an online insurance claims system based on blockchain and smart contract technology. I have the following comments:

• The abstract is more like a study than a research article abstract. It needs to be completely revised. The abstract can do without the first 6 lines.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified the abstract, with the red font in the manuscript.

• The problem is not evident from the abstract, or why is there a need to develop such a system?

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. In the current medical insurance claims process, there are problems of low efficiency and complex services. When a patient applies for medical insurance claims, he/she must go to the hospital to apply for a diagnosis certificate and receipt, and then send the relevant application documents to the insurance company. The patient will not receive compensation until the company completes the verification with the patient’s hospital. Therefore, we try to improve the current dilemma through blockchain technology.

• I cant see the relation between internet insurance and medical institutions in the abstract; please revise.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified the abstract, with the red font in the manuscript.

• Please provide the full form of EMR in keywords

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified it in keywords, with the red font.

• Hyperledger Fabric is a keyword but no mention in the abstract. Is this important? If yes, it must be presented in abstract

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have removed this keyword.

• The relevance of the paper to sustainability is not clear. The authors need to revise the paper with a specific focus on sustainability. The word sustainability is not mentioned at all in the paper.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have added the related description about sustainability on page 4 of section 1.1, with the red font.

• There is a serious lack of literature review in the paper. From lines 44 to 77 (almost one page), there is only one reference where many claims are made. These need to be supported by scholarly references

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Applying blockchain technology to insurance claims is a new concept, but it can greatly improve the current inefficient insurance claims situation.

• The problem is presented without any context and scholarly backing in the introduction. This needs revision

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have modified the related description in lines 52-64, added Ref. 2-3, and emphasized the advantages of the combination of blockchain and insurance claims in page 2 of section 1.1, with the red font.

• The bulk of references are presented in lines 88 and 98 for a very basic definition, and it looks like these are added just for counts, not value. The authors need to study relevant papers and support their study with relevant references.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The current blockchain medical-related literature does not touch the insurance level. This research is based on the lack of current medical insurance and proposes an insurance claims mechanism combined with blockchain medical care.

• Again from the introduction, the link between medical institutions and internet insurance is not clear. This weakens the need to conduct this study.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. In the current medical insurance claims process, there are problems of low efficiency and complex services. Therefore, we try to improve the current dilemma through blockchain technology. In lines 4 -62, we have described the current dilemma.

• I think the objectives of the paper are a bit ambitious, and the authors have focused on the basic functions of blockchains than their application in the study area. Please revise and relate to the topic.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Based on the current low efficiency of medical insurance claims, and combined with the advantages of blockchain, our research proposes a traceable online insurance claims system based on blockchain and smart contract technology. We believe that such a topic is appropriate.

• In section 2 (preliminary) the link to online insurance is not clear. Therefore, this section again focuses on the functions of blockchains.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. In section 2, we provide some background knowledge about the applied technology.

• The smart contract aspect is not well elaborated in the paper.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have introduced a smart contract in section 2.1 in lines 269-280. If readers are interesting, please refer to the provided references [37-38].

• When presenting the codes, establishing and discussing the relevance to medical institutions and internet insurance will help improve the writing of the paper. Please focus on this.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have detailed pseudocode and mathematical formula, which descript about the relevance to medical institutions and insurance company in pages 19-22 of section 3.9. In addition, we also added a yellow background color in the manuscript.

• The paper is all about codes and algorithms, and no proper discussion is presented in the paper. Even in the section named discussion, there are a lot of tables and no real discussion. This is a serious weakness of the paper. The author needs to focus on the discussion part of the paper.

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. In this research, we propose the conceptual architecture of the entire system, as well as the proposed method (including pseudo-code and mathematical mechanism of the system). In addition, we also use BAN logic to prove the safety of the system and present related academic performance analysis to explore the feasibility of the method in the discussion section.

• Please highlight the futuristic expansion of the study and the limitations in conclusion.

Thanks

Authors’ response:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We have added the related description about limitations on page 32 of section 5.4, with the red font. In addition, we have also added the related description about futuristic expansion on page 33 of section 6, with the red font.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Please check Table 5, it is overlapping with another table in the pDF

Please move the limitation to conclusion section 

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments:

1. Please check Table 5, it is overlapping with another table in the PDF.

Authors’ response:

We have checked it OK.

2. Please move the limitation to the conclusion section.

Authors’ response:

We have moved it to the conclusion section in lines 997-1005.