Exploring a Blockchain-Empowered Framework for Enhancing the Distributed Agile Software Development Testing Life Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'm myself a software developer and use Agile software development on a regular basis. So the idea behind this paper seems to go the right way to a more collaborative software development and testing but the idea is not very well explained. I found the paper way too long. Even if the idea is great, you are loosing your reader with pages and pages of explanations. More well explained diagrams (not like figure 1 that would require some explanations) or table, or sketches could really help grabbing the concept of BCTestingPlus. 

But here are a few things I noticed through the paper

• Abstract should be a teaser and not a summary of the entire paper, listing the various parts
• line 84: what made "us", not me ...
• figure 1: for a non expert like me, none of the ring makes any sense. This diagram deserves some explanation.
• line 103 ([4], [5]: it would be nice to have a quick summary of the references. It seems that, to understand the sentence, we have to go and read the reference. Those are just there for additional material.
• line 178 to 185: perfect summary of what's the BCTestingPlus. It would have been nice to see this ahead of all the text (maybe even in the abstract).
• first two pages (Introduction) way too long. Pleasure summarize them.
• line 300: blockchain mentioned everywhere but I'm still looking for a good definition of what it is..... and without the need to look at all the references !
• reference [25]: not sure what this reference does here. just say what's about 25 and add the reference at the end of the line.
• I keep seeing the same sentences over and over, making the article hard to read. example: "BCTestingPlus improves collaboration and communication be- tween testers and developers."
• 3.1 finally a paragraph that goes straight to the point in just a few lines
• figure 5: ??? coding version of what is explained in the text above. DOesn't bring anything.
• line 751: I don't understand the line
• line 770: "Testing employees who are paid well become so stimulated they do their job with above-average results."  not sure this is a good idea to put something like this here.
• figure 6: more code that doesn't bring anything except saying "you pay me before I run the tests"
• line 904: move the figure outside of the text block... sentence was cut at an odd place.
• line 1024: "The contract is the vehicle for performing an organized and elaborate presentation of 1024 functional requirements due to the functionality of the Functional Requirement 1025 struct." ????? no idea what this sentence really means. It needs to be reformulated

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found the article hard to read with a lot of repetition through the text of the same sentences over and over. Most of the sections could be summarize to facilitate the reading. 

Author Response

The response to the comments is attached in word form.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents platform Testing Plus, based on Ethereum blockchain. Its objectives are clear, but presented with inaccurate statements which show a lack of basic knowledge of the technology used (for example p.1row 27 “private Ethereum blockchain network“ – may be the authors used Hyperledger Besu, which is private, but Ethereum network is not private, p.4, row 172” Blockchains have been initially used in crypto, yet they have become ready, decentralized technology for a wide range of industries at the moment.” –  there are 3 generations of blockchains and smart contracts made theme attractive for some businesses.  “The opposition of centralised solutions like those of a single developer or evaluation team can be done away with because of the distributed architecture of blockchain technology,” –how architecture of the network changes/affects on the process of  business (developing of software) etc.) .

Sections 1. The traditional methods are not presented, conclusions for their proc and cons are not given and comparison of the proposed solution and traditional  solutions is not made. General statements without evidence, repeated many times by the authors, and general talk about the advantages of the technology without specifics raise the question of how familiar the authors are with the area in which they want to introduce innovation through blockchain. The repetition of some sentences as “the research significantly advances software development cooperation” without evidences or “Blockchain technology in software testing is a significant advancement in addressing 238 current challenges and expediting testing procedures “ without information about author’s opinion for “current challenges” it the text do not contribute anything.

 

Section 2 present only well-known blockchain tehnology. It is completely unnecessary for scientific readers/ specialists. Moreover, the presentation (rows 255-318) is not deep and it is not in the context of proposed solution. There is no authors opinion/critical analisys.  There is no subsection for solutions in software testing and background of current state of the art in this area totally missing. Only 2 related works are pointed ([21,22]). The part about control of supply chains is unnecessary in the presented context.

 

The proposed methodology is not clear. For example, the authors do not make comparison between solution without blockchain and the same with the blockchain. Moreover, they analized delay in the private blockchain solution, which work on one infrastructure with VMs. These results do not relate to the improvement od software developing/testing.  

The English language looks quite good. The title and abstract reflect well to the content. However, the abstract must be re-write, because it does not present the novelty of the proposed solution.

The conclusion summarized the proposed work.

The references are relevant to the topic. However, some of them are old- [7,15,16,21,23]. Moreover, the references [4] and [5] are the same, [29] and [30] are the same. In addition, the does not follow the same convention (29,30,31 do not follow the format of others)

The figures are with good quality.  

Author Response

The response to the comments is attached in word form.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version is much easier to read thanks to the new layout, figures and tables added. 

Thanks for answering each of my concerns. 

Author Response

Reviewer #1: Round 2

Comments 1: [The new version is much easier to read thanks to the new layout, figures and tables added. Thanks for answering each of my concerns.]
Response 1: [Thank you for your valuable and encouraging remarks. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and constructive suggestions. Your time and effort in reviewing our work are truly appreciated.]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the quality of the English language in our manuscript. In response, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the entire document to improve sentence structure, grammar, clarity, and academic tone. Special attention has been given to ensure that the ideas are presented in a concise and coherent manner.

5. Additional clarifications

We have thoroughly addressed the reviewers’ comments and made comprehensive revisions throughout the manuscript, incorporating all suggestions and recommendations provided. Each section has been carefully modified to align with the feedback received, ensuring improved clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the work.

We hope our revisions and clarifications meet the reviewers’ expectations and improve the manuscript. Please feel free to let us know if further modifications are required.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work.

Sincerely,
[Momina Shaheen]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some of my notes in previous review are taken into account. However, I did not find the letter with response to reviewers. 

Important to change are some references, which are old- [7,15,16,21,23]. In addition, check the format of all references, because it is not the IEEE format and it is not the same. For example, the references [29], [30] and [31]  does not follow the same convention of formatting of other references.

Author Response

Respected [Editor / Review Committee Chair],

I hope this message finds you well.

Please find below our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments regarding the manuscript/thesis titled: “Exploring a Blockchain-Empowered Framework for Enhancing the Distributed Agile Software Development Testing Life Cycle”

Manuscript ID: inventions-3662506

We are sincerely grateful to the reviewers for their valuable time, insightful feedback, and constructive suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality and clarity of our work.

Below, we have addressed each comment individually. Our responses are marked clearly under each comment, and all changes have been highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2: Round 1

Comments 1: [p.1row 27 “private Ethereum blockchain network“– may be the authors used Hyperledger Besu, which is private, but Ethereum network is not private,.]
Response 1: [Thank You for the valuable comment and suggestion, according to suggestion manuscript is updated and the revised version content in red] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the manuscript [We have explained the term used private Ethereum blockchain network with the help of Table 1, table2, table 3 and modified the content explanation in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 4-5, and line 122-144.]

 

Comments 2: [p.4, row 172” Blockchains have been initially used in crypto, yet they have become ready, decentralized technology for a wide range of industries at the moment.” –  there are 3 generations of blockchains and smart contracts made theme attractive for some businesses.  “The opposition of centralised solutions like those of a single developer or evaluation team can be done away with because of the distributed architecture of blockchain technology,” –how architecture of the network changes/affects on the process of  business (developing of software) etc.) ..]
Response 2: [Thank you for the valuable suggestions, according to suggestions we have updated the manuscript in red] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the manuscript as suggested and asked to do so. [We have explained the decentralized technology, generations of blockchain use, centralized and decentralized working and how the architechure works as business process these explained with help of table 4 as well in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 7-8, , paragraph, and line 211-235.]

 

Comments 3: [Sections 1. The traditional methods are not presented, conclusions for their proc and cons are not given and comparison of the proposed solution and traditional  solutions is not made. General statements without evidence, repeated many times by the authors, and general talk about the advantages of the technology without specifics raise the question of how familiar the authors are with the area in which they want to introduce innovation through blockchain. The repetition of some sentences as “the research significantly advances software development cooperation” without evidences or “Blockchain technology in software testing is a significant advancement in addressing 238 current challenges and expediting testing procedures “ without information about author’s opinion for “current challenges” it the text do not contribute anything..]
Response 3: [Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestion, according to the suggestions the manuscript is updated and its updated revised version in red] Thank you for pointing these. We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have updated the manuscript in different parts of article [Section 1.4 Traditional and blockchain based comparison approach with the help of table 5 explained and with figure 2 feature wise comparison explained. The text of line 238 is modified and updated to explain the contribution in the article. The repeated statements where necessary is also modified. These all explained in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 8-10 , and line 255-305, .]

 

 

Comments 4: [Section 2 present only well-known blockchain tehnology. It is completely unnecessary for scientific readers/ specialists. Moreover, the presentation (rows 255-318) is not deep and it is not in the context of proposed solution. There is no authors opinion/critical analisys.  There is no subsection for solutions in software testing and background of current state of the art in this area totally missing. Only 2 related works are pointed ([21,22]). The part about control of supply chains is unnecessary in the presented context.]
Response 4: [Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions, according to the suggestions the manuscript is updated and its updated version revised in red] Thank you for pointing these. We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have updated the manuscript in different parts of article [Blockchain technology is mentioned and in detail discussed in the updated manuscript in different parts like line 375-380. Second, the presentation of related work paragraphs 255-318 is updated and modified now in line number 314-381 and explained deeply related to article. Different related work is explained section group wise under related work which relates to the content maximum. There is a subsection provided under discussion from 5.1 to 5.5 which discusses the critical analysis, software testing background, current state-of-the-art challenges and proposed solutions in detail with the help of text and tables of different comparisons which highlights the novelty of this article. These all updates are provided in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 11-12 and 31-33 , and line 314-381 and 1157-1213 respectively]

 

Comments 5: [The proposed methodology is not clear. For example, the authors do not make comparison between solutions without blockchain and the same with the blockchain. Moreover, they analized delay in the private blockchain solution, which work on one infrastructure with VMs. These results do not relate to the improvement of software developing/testing..]
Response 5: [Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions, according to the suggestions the manuscript is updated and its updated version revised in red] Thank you for pointing these. We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have updated the manuscript in different parts of article [Comparison with blockchain and without blockchain is explained. Delay analysis is compared with the help of tables and private blockchain solution is provided with the help of metrices comparison. All these explained with the help of tables and content in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 37-40, and line 1310-1323]

 

Comments 6: [The English language looks quite good. The title and abstract reflect well to the content. However, the abstract must be re-write, because it does not present the novelty of the proposed solution..]
Response 6: [Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions, according to the suggestions the manuscript is updated and its updated version revised in red] Thank you for pointing this. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the manuscript [The abstract of the article is updated and re-written as suggested this change can be found – page number 1, and line 13-30]

 

Comments 7: [The conclusion summarized the proposed work..]
Response 7: [Thank You for your valuable remarks must appreciated, we sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and constructive remarks] Thank you for mentioning this. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have not made any change in this [In the updated revised manuscript this paragraph changed it location in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 40, and line 1324-1346.]

Comments 8: [The references are relevant to the topic. However, some of them are old- [7,15,16,21,23]. Moreover, the references [4] and [5] are the same, [29] and [30] are the same. In addition, the does not follow the same convention (29,30,31 do not follow the format of others)..]
Response 8: [Thank You for the valuable suggestion and remarks, as reference 5 is changed and updated in the revised version in red] Thank you for mentioning this. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made changes in reference section [In the updated version we have updated the reference 5 which is mistakenly duplicated with reference 4. Secondly reference 29 and 30 are different not same. Third reference 29,30, and 31 now updated following the format and in the end references [7,15,16,21,23] are important to discussed in the article and we have tried to refer the latest references by maximum this change can be found – page number 41, and line 1368.]

 

Comments 9: [The figures are with good quality. ]
Response 9: [Thank You for your valuable remarks must appreciated, we sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and constructive remarks] Thank you for mentioning this. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have not made any change in this

 

 

 

Reviewer #2: Round 2

Comments 1: [Some of my notes in previous review are taken into account. However, I did not find the letter with a response to reviewers.]
Response 1: [Thank You for the valuable comment and suggestion] Thank you for pointing this out. We have submitted all point-by-point responses in the updated version and in response to reviewer in a pdf file on portal. [We have updated manuscript and responded in round 1, point-by-point responses to reviewers’s in a pdf file on portal. Kindly check again.]

 

Comments 2: [Important to change are some references, which are old- [7,15,16,21,23]. In addition, check the format of all references, because it is not the IEEE format and it is not the same. For example, the references [29], [30] and [31]  does not follow the same convention of formatting of other references.]
Response 2: [Thank you for the valuable suggestion and remarks, as these references [7,15,16,21,23] are old but need to be discussed in the article. All references converted in IEEE format with the same convention.] Thank you for mentioning this. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made changes in reference section [In the updated version we have updated references in IEEE Format with same convention and reference 29,30, and 31 now updated following the same format and in the end references [7,15,16,21,23] are important to discussed in the article and we have tried to refer the latest references by maximum this change can be found – page number 41, and line 1368.]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the quality of the English language in our manuscript. In response, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the entire document to improve sentence structure, grammar, clarity, and academic tone. Special attention has been given to ensure that the ideas are presented in a concise and coherent manner.

5. Additional clarifications

We have thoroughly addressed the reviewers’ comments and made comprehensive revisions throughout the manuscript, incorporating all suggestions and recommendations provided. Each section has been carefully modified to align with the feedback received, ensuring improved clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the work.

We hope our revisions and clarifications meet the reviewers’ expectations and improve the manuscript. Please feel free to let us know if further modifications are required.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work.

Sincerely,
[Momina Shaheen]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf