Cybersecurity for Blockchain-Based IoT Systems: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have attempted to present their work on Cyber Security for Blockchain-Based IoT Systems. They presented a survey paper on the topic.

The topic is very broad and not original as it has been discussed by many researchers. The authors failed to provide any novel or fresh observations on the topic.

The content is basic and does not convey the technicalities on the topic. For example, how cybersecurity can be implemented on blockchain based IoT systems and how it could be useful. Also, how the other emerging fields like XAI can be useful.

The authors are required to perform an in depth comparative study on all the relevant research papers and then build the content on their own observation based on the facts and statistics.

The conclusion section is very weak and contains very general statements about the topic.

 There are very few tables and figures in the paper.

The paper presents very basic information in the survey paper. No novel observations or fresh analysis is presented. Overall, the paper is very weak. 

The paper presents very basic information in the survey paper. No novel observations or fresh analysis is presented. Overall, the paper is very weak. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors try to present a collated review to illustrate the security issues of blockchain-based IoT systems. This includes explaining the security issues that IoT will face and how blockchain can be integrated into IoT to enhance its network security. Here are some comments from the reviewer:

- The description of the introduction needs to be more detailed.

- The author mentioned the method of collecting data in the second section but needed to explain the technique in detail. For example, how did records screened remove 596 papers, how did reports assess for eligibility judge, what different language was removed, and are restrictions on access due to copyright? Irrelevant to the main topic, can you give an example to show readers how to filter out those articles?

- Suggest more journals that can be integrated into more databases such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, etc. 15 articles that may not support a review.

  - In the literature survey section, the selected articles are explained, and it is suggested that a table can be used to sort out their differences.

- It is suggested that you compare your review results with other review articles in the discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the paper, the review of cyber security challenges and solutions for Blockchain-Based IoT Systems, is for sure an actual and interesting one and sounds promising for the reader. The content of the paper is true to the intentions stated in the abstract.

It is though not clear why the search string used does not contain any reference to IoT – the methodology used for the selection of articles included in the review needs to be presented clearly, in more details. Section 3 should be synthetized in a table, it is somehow didactical and hard to follow. Figure 2 is a too-general representation of Blockchain, it does not illustrate the subject of the article.

 

Some typos were identified: Yli-Huumo et al. Provide (p. 7), Raju et al. Discuss (p. 8), vulnerabi321sdlities (p.11).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors evaluated the current literature and highlighted the significant difficulties in cybersecurity for blockchain-based IoT systems in this study.

Kindly state the names of automation tools mentioned in Figure 1. In section 3, the citations are included at the end of paragraphs, this has to be re-arranged and the citations should place on proper places. The author can refer related review articles for this.

The basics of block chain technology should be incorporated here with necessary diagrams.

In the almost all the sections, the citations are placed at the end of paragraph. This is not a standard way of citation.

The fundamental block diagrams of (i) IoT device security, (ii) blockchain security, and (iii) integration of IoT devices with blockchain  (Network Security) has to be incorporated in the respective sections.

The comparison of all the related works should be done, and should be included in graphical/tabular form for helping the readers to easily understand the concepts.

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript extensively however, the paper still needs following suggestions to be incorporated,

1. Novelty (Comment #2 and 7) is not satisfactory. The authors are required present their own observations based on the experiments and literature survey.

2. The added content "XAI: Blockchain can be used to explain how blockchain systems work, making them more transparent and accountable. This can help to build trust and confidence in the system, which can deter attackers." is incorrect and need to technically correct.

3. Authors' own contribution is to be clearly written in abstract, conclusion along with separate section.

4. As the paper has no empirical results, the authors should emphasis more on the fresh learning and observations. Mere comparisons and general statements won;t be sufficient. The authors needs to establish a clear relation between the research done and its outcome (tentative at least).

5. The authors may refer the quality research (survey) papers to understand the expectations by their paper/work. 

6. The authors may focus on advanced cyber security techniques on specific domain and add a section specifically on it as a case study, and essentially corelating it with the paper.

The paper still need revisions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for paying attention to my suggestions. But there is still some content still needs to check in the article.

- The XAI that the authors mentioned in the Discussion section is explainable AI. Still, the authors should have mentioned the relation between blockchain and more references to support the association.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for adressing my comments. Still, table 1 can be improved, e.g. by categorization of identified challenges & solutions. A classification will add value to the paper and the readers.

Proofing is needed, there are still some typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

There are few grammatical errors in Table 1. For example, .........The paper proposes using lighter weight cryptographic techniques........., ..............The paper surveys solutions proposed in the literature............... Also, the term 'The paper' is not seems to be a standard one for a standard journal like Applied Sciences. Hence, rewrite al these sentences. Also, find and correct all the grammatical errors.

Figure 4 is having very less resolution and quality. Also, the icons are little bit small. Please regenerate it. 

There are few grammatical errors correct all the grammatical errors. There are few grammatical errors in Table 1. For example, .........The paper proposes using lighter weight cryptographic techniques........., ..............The paper surveys solutions proposed in the literature............... 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript well. It can be accepted now.

The quality of English is ok