Public Key Encryption with Equality Test in a Cloud Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comparison can be carried out with recent relevant references
paper seems to be a theoritical study and follows very vague presentation style
Highlight the novelty in abstract and conclusion part as compared to the recent relevant literature in quantitative manner
results and discussion part is very poor
Performance analysis can be elaborated with recent references
justify how yours is better with the available methods in literature
discuss about the purpose of the proposed scheme
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
comments:
It is necessary to increase the volume of the Introduction, add the disadvantages and advantages of the public key encryption method.
It is necessary to revise the order of references to literature. Looks very messy throughout the text.
Give real examples of the proposed scheme.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A new public key encryption scheme with equality test in cloud environment has been proposed in this submission. The claims are justified with theoretical and experimental results. However, I have the following comments:
Major Comments:
- There are some strange sentences in the abstract, e.g., line 15. What is DLP? Please revise the abstract.
- Although there are some merits of the scheme, the current presentation is not good and very difficult to follow. Please thoroughly and carefully revise the whole paper including Abstract, Introduction, Proposed scheme, and the results.
- Something is wrong with the mathematical symbols.
- The authors have nicely discussed the related work in Section 1.2. But it is not clear why the existing schemes cannot be used and why the authors are proposing this new scheme. What is the problem with the existing schemes?
- Please revise all the mathematical definitions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have carried out all the corrections raised by the reviewers and hence the paper can be accepted
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. Your comments and suggestions have helped us improve the academic standard and quality of our manuscript. We express our high respect and sincere thanks to you.
Reviewer 3 Report
2nd round:
Thank you very much for revising the manuscript but there are still many typos even in the Abstract. Last time I suggested revising line 15 but the problem has not been fixed.
Similarly, there are several typos in the newly added text, e.g.,
lines 63-65: The sentence is a bit strange as plaintext is encrypted by using keys, not the keys are encrypted by plaintext.
line 169: In 2019, Zeng Qi et al. [1515]designed
In short, the authors need to seriously put efforts to improve the whole draft.
3rd round:
I found that there are still typos e.g., 214 2.1 Asymmetric Bilinear Mapping[30] Considering the level of this journal, I recommend rejection of this paper in the current form, and suggest a resubmission of the revised version.
I think the paper is scientifically sound and has some publishable results. But it should not be published in the current format.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. We seriously put efforts to improve the whole draft. Please use "Track Changes"function to see the changes after modification.
Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript.
