Next Article in Journal
Coming to Grips with Age Prediction on Imbalanced Multimodal Community Question Answering Data
Previous Article in Journal
Narrative Construction of Product Reviews Reveals the Level of Post-Decisional Cognitive Dissonance
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Secure and Computable Blockchain-Based Data Sharing Scheme in IoT System

Information 2021, 12(2), 47; https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020047
by Shuang Sun 1,2, Rong Du 1,2 and Shudong Chen 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Information 2021, 12(2), 47; https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020047
Submission received: 1 January 2021 / Revised: 13 January 2021 / Accepted: 18 January 2021 / Published: 20 January 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made an excellent work but some points need to be clarified.

The authors don't provide evidence about why they choose their evaluation tool.

The authors need to provide at the conclusion section what is the contribution to the real world.

The math equations (1,2) are very hazy and need to be clarified and provide evidences their sources

Also need to provide a flow chart about their approach. 

The references need to follow the journal regulations (not use the google scholar)

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed a computable and secure IoT data sharing scheme, which is based on blockchain, ABE, FHE, and homomorphic encryption. In this model, the authors use FHE to encrypt the data realizing secure data computation. Also, the authors used ABE to realize fine-granted IoT data sharing. The proposed model uploads the data’s access policy onto the blockchain, which allows any user to verify whether their attributes satisfied the access policy. The security analysis proved that the proposed scheme is secure, and the performance evaluation experiments shown that the scheme is practical.

I read carefully the author's contribution, and I would give several suggestions. I'm overall positive and would like to see this paper published, but before that, a revision is required.

  1. I miss a section that outlines the limitations of your approach and possibilities of extension. Are there any disadvantages or limits of your model?
  2. Expand section “Conclusion”. Add directions for further research.
  3. Papers contain some of English and Grammatical errors; therefore authors are suggested to take assistance of some professional English writer.
  4. Some references need to be updated such as Ref 2 (there is no paper title); Ref 41, 42, 43 …

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop