Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have thoroughly reviewed your paper and would like to provide you with some suggestions for further improvements. Please consider the following points:

1.       It would be beneficial to clearly articulate the motivation behind your work, highlighting the specific problem or gap in the existing literature that you aim to address. Present this information in a point-wise format for better clarity. Additionally, explicitly state the contributions of your work in the introduction section. This will help readers understand the significance of your research.

2.       I recommend expanding the discussion in section 2 to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Including additional details, examples, or analysis would greatly enhance reader comprehension.

3.       Revise the conclusion section to effectively summarize your key findings and highlight the main objective of your study. This will reinforce the significance of your work and leave a lasting impression on the readers.

4.       In the introduction section, ensure that you provide sufficient detail for each reference individually. For instance, elaborate on the relevance and significance of references 3, 4, 812, etc., to better contextualize their importance in relation to your research.

5.       At the beginning of section 3, it would be helpful to include a discussion that introduces the readers to the content and purpose of this section. Providing an overview or a brief summary of the topics to be covered will assist readers in navigating the section effectively.

6.       In order to enhance reader comprehension, consider providing a short introduction at the beginning of section 4. This introduction should briefly outline the objectives and themes covered in this section, preparing readers for the subsequent content.

7.       At the start of section 5, provide a comprehensive overview of the contents and details that will be discussed in this section. This will assist readers in understanding the purpose and relevance of the information presented.

8.       Remove any unnecessary or excessive references to streamline the reference section. It is important to only include references that directly support and contribute to your research.

 

9.       Ensure that you appropriately cite all relevant references in the literature. Remove any references listed in the reference section that are not cited within the paper. Additionally, consider critically evaluating the necessity and relevance of each reference to maintain the overall quality of your work.

minor improvements should be needed.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper classifies cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities in smart contracts using literature research and analysis. A seven-layer architecture identifies security risks and countermeasures for each layer, with a focus on the contract layer. Blockchain technology, based on cryptocurrency and smart contracts, offers significant business benefits. However, it still faces significant security challenges within its various layers. A model application is developed to depict security risks and best practices for mitigating them. Future research should focus on developing countermeasures to mitigate the security risks and vulnerabilities inherent to one-owner control in smart contracts. This research is well organized and constructed. However, there are some minor comments to improve the paper which are given below:

1) The authors focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the employed Blockchain methodologies. It is suggested that the authors benefit from the distributed decision-making methods to enhance the theoretical background  such as: 1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.027 and 2) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107644

2) The conclusion part should be divided into subsections such as the main practical or managerial implications of the study.  Also, the authors should be mentioned who will gain the maximum benefit from the paper.

3) The authors should review the manuscript carefully to remove typos and grammatical issues.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. I suggest authors to rework on the abstract by specifying  the purpose, outcome of the paper clearly.
2. Can u include a separate paragraph in the introduction about How are the critical cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities in smart contracts classified?
3. I suggest authors to specify notable findings mentioned in the literature regarding one-owner control in smart contracts.
4. What is the specific focus of this paper on the contract layer of the blockchain? I suggest authors to specify the security risks within the contract layer detailed, and what are the best practices and tools suggested to mitigate these risks?
5. How your work is related with the work specified in https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050280. Kindly discuss it and compare
6. Can you specify the suggested directions for future research in developing countermeasures against the security risks and vulnerabilities related to one-owner control in smart contracts?

English grammar should be polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is ok.

Minor checking required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Upon addressing the subsequent concern, I would find contentment with the revised corrections. Within the paper, the authors omitted a discussion of the comparison delineated in the source https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050280. I kindly request the authors to appropriately reference this source and initiate a discourse underscoring the substantial pertinence of this comparison to their own research.

Nil

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf