Educational Blockchain: A Secure Degree Attestation and Verification Traceability Architecture for Higher Education Commission

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main objective and outline of the paper:

The paper presents a possible blockchain based authentication, verification and validation of higher educational certificates using the blockchain technology in the Pakistan environment.

The research focuses on developing blockchain-based process in order to improve the authenticity of degrees and educational certificates issued by universities in Pakistan involving HEC. There is a need in that specific country for higher authenticity as there are a lot of fake degrees circulating and used for job applications.

The paper presents the developing phase, the developed tool and describes in details how the proposed system works with one of the most secure technologies.

General comments:

The paper is a well structured and well written descriptive paper which apart from presenting the elaborated HEDU-ledger and detail design of blockchain enabled Hyperledger fabric, focuses on security and safety problems and highlights the secure verification, validation and authenticity probabilities within the system between the HEC, FEM and the universities. The paper presents the current situation in Pakistan, gives possible solutions from various literature and explores the reasons behind the development. The applicability of blockchain technology in degree verification is supported, and gives added value to the research field and shows how a novel IT technological development can be implemented in the higher educational sector. The elaborated model can be modified and used by other higher educational institutions in the future. The conclusion summarizes the concept of the paper and the actual research of the paper. The abstract is well written and includes all the relevant information about the paper.

The paper, however, needs some modifications and improvement.

The details are as follow:

External values:

Formatting and style

The paper is formatted as required.  The paper is subdivided into chapters and subchapters.  The structure of the paper is up to the template. The paper uses academic style. Please check hyphenation throughout the paper. The paper needs proofreading to correct some minor English language problems (sentence rephrasing, missing verbs, incomprehensible sentences):

line 18-20, 121-122 unfinished sentence, 132-134,

 the bulleted list needs language revising in line 148-163,

 line 217, line 282-283, the sentence needs rephrasing or the sentence needs to be completed.

The paper uses active voice in several sentence, please avoid using “we concluded”, “addressed” in academic writing (e.g. line 149, 151, 557)

Try to avoid word like “recent, current, previous” – when, where – exact dating is important since researchers will read the paper in the future.

Line 309 – REST API is not explained in the paper.

The paper has 6 keywords. They are well selected. Please put the keywords in alphabetical order.

Clarity of discussion style (discussions should be clear and concise)

The discussion style of the paper is quite clear and easy to follow. The discussion style is concise, however the paper is very dense. The model is well introduced, however the placing of figures and the referencing to figures need revising since figures do not follow the flow of the paper and puts extra burdon on the reader.

Intrinsic values:

Relevance of subject matter, Scientific merits

The subject matter of the paper is up-to-date, novel, highly relevant and important. Higher educational institutions are in the middle of a transition, digitalization needs to be increased, and the question of certificate authentication and verification is of high importance. The higher the universities can eliminate the appearance of faked degrees the prestige of degrees become even better in each country not just in Pakistan as the target country of the research.

The deployment of blockchain technology gives an extra scientific merit and the direct linkage between the governmental body and the universities can create a safer and more secure environment.

Soundness of methodology, appropriateness of theoretical framework

The proportion of the theoretical framework and the primary research in question is proportionate. The literature review is detailed, it discusses the main aspects and components of the research and the research model. Table 1 collects similar type of developments for various higher educational institutions; however, authors are asked to include the names of the authors for each example to make the list consistent. The third example “Towards a Blockchain…” requires a proper sentence for the second column.

Correctness of conclusions

The discussion and conclusion parts well summarize the essence of the paper. The discussion part is detailed, however more literature references would be required for the discussion and mainly for the conclusion part. The author refers to 4 sources, three of them being the author’s own work. The discussion and the conclusion part include the limitations of the research and add implications for further studies from the tutor side as well. The paper discusses a possible solution for the problem raised.

Suitability of Figures and Tables

The paper includes three tables and seven figures. The tables support comprehension, and they are referenced as required in the body of the text. In case of table 2 authors are kindly asked to block by horizontal lines and be aware of not leaving the heading of the table separate from the content of the table. The same applies to Table 3 as well.

Figures are all too small and illegible and they are not placed in the right slot in the paper throughout the paper. Please insert the figures right after the figure is referred to in the body text (e.g. figure should be placed after line 101) the first time. Please enlarge the figures to fit window and zoom the font size. These steps would ease reading of the paper. Some figures are placed in the paper but not described in the body test. Please check.

Figure 2 should be moved to right after the first reference. There are phases in the body text linked to the figure, however, they cannot be directly linked to the steps on the Figure. Please check and correct. A possible combination of the figure and a workflow would be advantageous.

Figure 3 and 4 should be moved to right after the references.

Suitability of references

The paper includes 45 references. Considering the novelty of the technology in the educational sector the number of references is acceptable. The references are mostly from the last 5 years, vary in time and space (international).  Perhaps some authors from the western countries could be cited in larger number to ensure the decolonization of authors as well. Most of the references are cited well in the text. The DOI number where available, should be included and the online sources need the date of access. Please check the style and the precise data of the references, the style is not concise.

Recommendation:

The research presents a novel and modern application of blockchain technology in higher education on order to increase the ratio of degrees digitally authenticated and verified by the higher educational bodies in Pakistan. The research describes in detail a possible workflow of this process including all the relevant parties.  

I would recommend the publishing of the paper with minor revisions.

Author Response

Reviewer Response

Kindly check the revised version

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is an application of Blockchain technology to educational degree traceability. Perhaps more technical details (security, response time) should be illustrated (it seems only a set-up of existing technologies).

Author Response

Reviewer Response 

Kindly Check the revised version

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

1. I suggest improving the literature review. I understand the concept of "innovation" requires a separate paper, but it would be appropriate to be mentioned and used as one of the pillars of a strategic management approach.  
2. The conclusion is slightly prolonged. Some of the discussion points in the "Result and Discussion" are repeated in the "conclusion" with less refinement. Additionally, I don't think you need to give any references in conclusion. 
3. I believe you need to review the language style in parts of the paper. For example, some of the words are overused, i.e., the term "analysis". Instead, you can use "study", "critique", etc. when appropriate. Again, it helps to provide a better engagement with the readers. I

Author Response

Reviewer Response

Kindly Check this revised version

Author Response File: Author Response.doc