A Narrative Review of Identity, Data and Location Privacy Techniques in Edge Computing and Mobile Crowdsourcing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work analyzes critical privacy concerns related with mobile crowdsourcing and edge computing, in the idea of ​​preserving it in the context of technological advancement.

The authors' conclusions related with their study are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. (with a focus on identity privacy, data privacy, and location privacy).

In section 4 (Discussion) an analysis is made of the critical elements of privacy concerns identified by the authors in the study with a brief presentation of potential solutions and approaches in order to improve the preservation of confidentiality and the last section is for presenting their conclusion

Weakness:

1. The authors limit the bibliographic resources to the year 2021. Express recommendation to use more recent bibliographic sources

2. The work has a theoretical character with a strong emphasis on the presentation of some basic terminologies

3. It is recommended to include at the end of the introductory chapter a summary presentation of the structure of the work presented

4. The presentation is far too general and does not present specific elements of interest (eg. Technological Frameworks, ...)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

we have thoroughly seen your comments and have addressed the key issues.

We have indeed expanded literature search to 2023 end , and there are fewer 2024 articles also but mainly till 2023.

We have included trends and important research directions also.

We have proof read  the article and for framework, we have explained in more detail in subsequent sections.

 

thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The ideas on emerging trends and technologies in the paper could be developed, perhaps with a focus on the future developments of AI and machine learning used in privacy preservation. This would give a forward-looking perspective that also somewhat addresses any gaps identified in the literature. Much more detail with technical descriptions would contribute to discussing the technical aspects. However, deep explanations of the key techniques, from encryption methods up to identity management systems, would increase the informative value for a readership that is not professional in these topics.

This could also involve practical applications or case studies to identify where these privacy techniques have been used in a real environment and have been successful; such evidence would strengthen the arguments but also provide readers-especially industry practitioners-with some useful insights. Generally, the paper is well written, though certain sections require refinement for better clarity and ease of reading. The paper requires simplification of some of the complex sentences and avoidance of technical jargon to make it more readable to a wider audience.

This will add a legal and ethical dimension to the purely technical analysis of implications that basic regulations like GDPR or HIPAA will have on edge computing and mobile crowdsourcing, thus providing a more holistic view of the challenges and solutions. Mentioning the possible future research directions based on the gaps in the literature could act as a guideline for other researchers and thus contribute to further development in the field.

It would be interesting to include a section discussing how a user's view on privacy concerns can be integrated. This is a point where the elaboration of user perceptions about privacy issues and their involvement in data protection strategies, such as consent or user-controlled privacy settings, can be made. The idea of all these suggestions is to increase the depth and clarity of-and interest in-the paper, hence making it more valuable for the readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A second check for small grammatical errors, misplaced modifiers, and awkward phrasing would serve to put a final polish on the paper. Generally, the English is fine; all the same, these slight touches may make the paper more readable and more agreeable to read.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

We have addressed your comments thoroughly and have included the emerging trends and future directions.

We included GDPR or HIPAA as directions who can benefit from this study.

We also mentioned few more newer methods like AI, federated learning and few newer encryption methods,

Thanks

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Improve the abstract. It would be effective to briefly discuss certain problems or advancements that the paper will cover and why the review of them is pertinent.

Perhaps the abstract could state and mention the most key privacy issues including identity, data, and location privacy.

2) Introduction: The introduction may also try to give even more reasons why this review is necessary, especially if there are any gaps found in the literature or some trends that make this study most appropriate. Akin to this, it is quite hard to figure out a link between edge computing, mobile crowdsourcing, and privacy, where the authors could have at least provided a smoother transition for the reader into the rest of the paper.

3) Background and related work. It is necessary to mention that the description of the literature review process can be laconic. Where the author has used search queries, they could have included it in the body of the text, this could be summarized all together and the details put in an appendix. Expend more detail to what was done with the selected literature (for example whether thematic analysis was conducted in order to establish trends). 

4) Privacy Concerns in Mobile Crowdsourcing: This knowledge can nonetheless be useful to enhance section 3 of the paper providing a more detailed analysis of recent innovations of mobile crowdsourcing privacy techniques.

In particular, the repeated appearance of the concept can be seen in some subsections, for example, “Identity Privacy.” They could have been stated in a more descriptively efficient way with less repetition being made.
It would thus be useful to give examples, or at least references to actual use scenarios, to show how these privacy considerations are realized.

5) Privacy Concerns in Edge Computing: Some more information about the privacy-preserving machine learning techniques, like federated learning, should be included in this section because it is really connected to edge computing. The improvements sector might also present a more prospective view about how new unknowns as AI and 5G affect the private boundary of edge computing.

6) Technological Frameworks and Challenges: Looking at the topic in a broader view, it is possible to note that this section could provide even more details concerning the issues related to the heterogeneity of devices and data sources – these are the aspects that make privacy in the context of edge computing most intricate. Sometimes the proposal can be improved by offering comparisons with other frameworks, for example, cloud vs edge computing which are both trending today.

7) Discussion: In this case, the discussion should be further deepened to encompass more intensive critical evaluation of existing drawbacks and prospective development in the domain. What are the research questions that have not been answered in the management of the identified diseases? That leads to the following questions: What are the missing features in the existing solutions for preserving privacy at the edge of computing and in mobile crowdsourcing?

Explain in more depth the issues of scalability and data heterogeneity as they are crucial aspects for both mobile crowdsourcing and edge computing.

8) Include potential future research directions in the section of the conclusions.

9) Some extra diagrams or flowcharts could be utilized to visualize the privacy challenges and solutions in edge computing. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate. Proofread the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We have revised the comments, include future directions.

Table 3 gives a hierarchy of methods and we believe it can be used as flowchart .

We have included the need of this review also in the introduction.

Further we enhanced each section to have latest references.

We enhance discussion section to include about ML, Federated learning methods and explain the need for advanced encryption methods also.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author responded to my recommendations

Author Response

We thanks the Reviewer for the constructive feedback and help us improve the quality of our work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Several of the technical topics and aspects described in the manuscript at a relatively high level of abstraction, including homomorphic encryption, federated learning, and differential privacy, could be described in simpler terms. This is useful for readers with various backgrounds because it will give them an overview of the principal privacy-preserving techniques. You may wish to use illustrations or diagrams to explain these concepts since they may seem rather abstract.

2) The manuscript briefly talks of a few technologies such as differential privacy and blockchain, however, these can be developed into a more elaborate discussion. Explain examples of using these technologies and overview detailed information on how such technologies could solve the issues typical for edge computing and mobile crowdsourcing. The use of more current cases and the setting up of more benchmarks would have supported the arguments.

3) Although the paper does identify the trade-off between privacy preservation and computational efficiency, it could always do with a deeper going over. Understanding other problems in the design of small-scale privacy-preserving solutions and their adoption in large-scale mobile crowdsourcing would be more informative. To make this section more useful, the authors should provide an idea of how these barriers can be addressed.

4) The conclusion should therefore not only give a summary of the research work but also definite recommendations in the form of well-articulated implications for research and practice. This would be valuable to this paper by providing concrete ways in which the discussed privacy techniques can be applied by industry professionals and policymakers alike. If it were necessary to identify the areas that require more attention and problem-solving at the existing stage (for example, the question of privacy preservation along with instant data analysis in autonomous systems), such a conclusion would seem more practical.

5) The analysis of the literature is quite exhaustive, however, it is not very well structured. One would wish to arrange the review in this way so that the reader is presented with a strong background gradually to current research and studies and finally the modern approaches. This flow will assist the readers in understanding how the field has developed.

6) Despite the fact that the majority of the English is understandable, some parts of the text are rather hard to wade through. Use of short clear structured sentences, use of vocabulary free of professional terminologies, and appropriate word linking to ensure transitions will make the text easier to read. Further, changing the passive voice to active may make the manuscript more rich and interesting, maybe there are a lot of of passive voice constructions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofread the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1: thanks for the useful comment, we have created a table in appendix for key definitions for readers to understand the key concepts.

Comment 1: we have drawn a mind map figure also to explain the flow of the paper.

Comment 2: we have added a use case subsection inside Discussion section.

Comment 3: we have included barriers in limitations 

Comment 6, we have proof read it.

 

thanks for the constructive feedback

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Although the reader can find the full literature review in the manuscript, it would be beneficial in some cases to the reader if the review is to be done in a more structured manner. To make the literature review easier to read you could adhere to organizational scaffolding (chronological or categorical) such as by privilege concern or technology type. Another way of representing the evolution from early research to contemporary research is a visual flowchart.

2. Taking on complex topics such as homomorphic encryption, federated learning, and differential privacy, the manuscript manages to do a decent work of dealing with these. Nevertheless, explanations are still quite abstract, especially for non-specialists. If you want to improve access, you might offer simplified descriptions, as well as technical definitions. These concepts could be illustrated using some accompanying diagrams or flowcharts.

3. A use case subsection added in the Discussion section makes your work more practical. One could also expand this section and give examples of edge computing and mobile crowdsourcing applications made possible with differential privacy or blockchain tech. That should highlight how these technologies tackle the problem of privacy and security challenges in real-world scenarios.

4. I note sufficiently your discussion of the privacy efficiency tradeoff. On top of this, you could go deeper into the specific limitations faced when deploying these privacy-preserving technologies on mobile or edge devices. It could involve gains in computational overhead or latency issues and what can be done about them.

5. The conclusion section provides an excellent summary of key points but could be enriched by adding some specific recommendations for industry practitioners. It would be useful to have real applications, such as differential privacy in autonomous systems or federated learning in mobile healthcare applications. Moreover, from a forward-looking perspective, an analysis of areas that require further research, such as improving instant data analysis in privacy-sensitive contexts, can be discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Though the authors have proofread the manuscript it is still possible to simplify language, making the reading less complex. The text would be shorter sentences and reduced jargon making it more engaging. We could also use shifting from passive to active voice, as much as possible to help increase clarity and reader engagement as well.

Author Response

1. Comment 1: We have included a bibliographical analysis to illustrate the trends and chronological evolution in the field.
2. Comment 2: We have provided a glossary of terms in the appendix to help readers understand key concepts.
3. Comment 3: We have highlighted the blockchain method and offered recommendations within the case study.
4. Comment 4: We have added discussions on limitations in several subsections related to mobile and edge computing to enhance understanding. we mentioned about energy efficiency too.
5. Comment 5: We have mentionsed some key areas that require further attention, such as energy efficiency, ML, and in other domains