Managing Digital Evidence in Cybercrime: Efforts Towards a Sustainable Blockchain-Based Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors proposed a blockchain-based solution for managing digital evidence, improving data integrity and admissibility in the judicial domain. After reviewing this article, I think the article could be improved in the following ways.

1) The authors do not analyze the current research in sufficient depth. The current research is mainly presented and lacks in-depth analysis.

2）The references in the paper and the algorithms of the relevant studies analyzed are too old in time. Literature analyzed in the last 3-5 years should be added.

3）The authors mentioned "To develop and test a new application model based on blockchain technology". The thesis is significantly under-analyzed.

4)  To assist you further, I would recommend consulting the following references and examples:

  a)A blockchain platform selection method with heterogeneous multi-criteria Decision-Making based on hybrid distance measures and an AHP-EWM weight method. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2024.256:124910.

  b)An improved DPoS consensus mechanism in blockchain based on PLTS for the smart autonomous multi-robot system. Information Sciences, 575: 528-541.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors proposed an interesting idea by applying a blockchain-based solution for managing digital evidence, improving data integrity and admissibility in the judicial domain. Although the authors attempted to present the work in a clear and readable way, there are such concerns that should be taken into consideration. First of all, the abstract is a little bit long; so authors need to revise this section in order to make it more clear and consistent. Moreover, the introduction Section needs more details in terms of previous related works. Although the objectives are listed in this section, the contributions should be stated at the end of this section as well. Also, the research methodology can be moved after section 3; so the research methodology can be Section 3, while Section 2 represents Literature Review. Table 1 shows a comparison of blockchain-based chain of custody solutions, but it is not compared previous works with current study. The results section can be improved in terms of visualizing the results in more adequate way. Also, current results in terms of targeting Sustainable Blockchain Based Solution should be discussed and compared in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion section needs to be revised, as it is not very long and some citations are there which often not to be in the conclusion section. Finally, the future works should be stated clearly in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the potential of blockchain technology in managing digital evidence for cybercrime investigations, focusing on ensuring integrity, security, and admissibility of evidence. The authors propose and test a consortium blockchain-based model using Ethereum and Polygon networks, highlighting significant cost-efficiency and scalability benefits, particularly with the Polygon network.

Suggestions for Improvement

-The discussion section in the paper is too brief, especially the smart contract vulnerabilities part. The authors should provide a more in-depth analysis.

-Given the importance of privacy in this domain, it would be beneficial to dedicate a separate section to privacy considerations, addressing potential risks and solutions.

-The paper mentions the challenge of access control for digital evidence, noting that centralizing storage simplifies access control policies but introduces a single point of failure. The authors should explore distributed access control policies, which have been discussed extensively in related literature such as [1] and [2].

-Chapter 3 would benefit from an introductory overview to guide the reader through its subsections.

-The abbreviations in Table 1 should be explained in the same line as the caption for clarity. Additionally presenting Table 1 on a single page for readability would be preferable.

-The term “localized blockchain” is used but not explained. The authors should provide a clear definition to avoid ambiguity.

 

[1] Ruj, S., & Nayak, A. (2013). A decentralized security framework for data aggregation and access control in smart grids. IEEE transactions on smart grid, 4(1), 196-205.

[2] Buccafurri, Francesco, et al. "Enforcing security policies on interacting authentication systems." Computers & Security 140 (2024): 103771.

 

Author Response

Please se uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have successfully revised the current version based on the given comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their work on the paper. The authors have answered all my concerns. The paper can be accepted as it is.