A UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing loMT Healthcare Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title “A UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing IoMT Healthcare Networks”

In this manuscript, the authors claimed that they have used the Stackelberg model to secure the IoMT network and proposed Stackelberg ad-hoc on-demand distance vector (SBAODV). The Stackelberg model is a game theory concept that can be applied to various scenarios, including the field of Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) security. In the IoMT context, the Stackelberg model can be used to analyze and improve security strategies between different entities, such as medical device manufacturers, healthcare providers, and potential attackers. The authors also claimed that they achieved better results in terms of PDR and throughput as compared to others. The model presented in the current format is interesting, however, some changes are required before consideration for possible publication.

       I.          The literature review section lacks consistency and coherency in connection with the abstract and the introduction of the manuscript. The literature/related work should mention the pros & cons of existing methods.

      II.          The equations should be referenced in the main text and explained to enhance the readability and understandability of the manuscript. As numerous equations are presented in section 3.2 but only a few are referenced in the text…

    III.          The “algorithm 1. Pseudo code of secure ST game”, should be presented with proper indentation.

    IV.          It is not justified why only uniform random distribution policy is considered for the node placement in simulation. Why not others?

     V.          The measurement parameters analyzed are Packet Delivery Ratio, Network Routing Load, Throughput, and Detection Ratio while only two were mentioned in the abstract. Why?

    VI.          From the analysis of the results, it is not clear why the proposed model outperforms others. This should be justified with solid points.

       I.          Numerous grammatical mistakes were found during the review. It is suggested to carefully proofread the manuscript.  

Note: Moreover, it's important to note that the Stackelberg model is just one approach to analyze and improve IoMT security. Real-world security challenges in the IoMT domain are complex, involving multiple stakeholders and constantly evolving threats. Therefore, a comprehensive security strategy should also consider other frameworks, such as risk assessment, vulnerability management, and regulatory compliance, to ensure the highest level of security for IoMT systems and protect patient privacy and safety. Therefore,  the authors are suggested to consider these points for future research.

Numerous grammatical mistakes were found during the review. It is suggested to carefully proofread the manuscript.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our response letter in the attached document. 

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, this work is well written and it presents some interesting findings. However, it has several concerns that needs to be alleviated. My concerns are as follows:

1 What are the key features of the UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing IoMT Healthcare Networks, and how do they contribute to improving healthcare outcomes?

2 How does the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in healthcare settings impact patient privacy and data security, and what measures can be taken to mitigate these risks?

3 How does the Stackelberg- security based game theory algorithm work, and what are its key advantages over other security models?

4 What role do hospital centers play in UAV-assisted healthcare networks, and how can they be integrated into existing healthcare infrastructure?

5 How does the use of UAVs impact response times for medical emergencies, and what evidence is there to support this claim?

6 Stackelberg game theory is an important item in this work. To highlight this point, some fundamental works can be included and reviewed. Please refer to “Hierarchical stochastic scheduling of multi-community integrated energy systems in uncertain environments via Stackelberg game”, “A Survey of Cyber-Physical Systems From a Game-Theoretic Perspective”.

The Quality of English Language is acceptable

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our response letter in the attached document. 

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article titled “A UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing IoMT 2 Healthcare Networks”, relates to my area of interest that’s why I recommend some points which may help in order to improve the readability as well as overall structure of this manuscript. The following are my suggestions, recommendations and questions for this article which may help to improve the quality of this manuscript are as follows.

A UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing IoMT 2 Healthcare Networks

1.     Title statement is improper. It must be rewritten.­

2.     Abstract

·       Mention relevant background before elaborating your proposed study

·       Must use the contrast word i.e., on one hand and on the other hand.

·       By using the given proposed security algorithm, how can you relate that your work is efficient than the other techniques.

3.     Introduction (Minor revision is required in this section)

·       Background of the area may be elaborated more

·       Put some more pictures of your relevant work   

·       Related work of the proposed area must be elaborated further

·       Problem statement and proposed solution are missing

·       Motivation part of your work is missing

4.     Methodology

·       Describe your proposed method "sufficiently" detailed such that others can redo your experiment(s).

·       Proposed security algorithm needs to be compared with other related techniques to further discuss the effectiveness of your work.

5.     Results

·       Validation part in this section is missing so it needs to be added

·       Comparison with some other experiments may be elaborated more

6.     Discussions

·       Must include this part before conclusion

·       Define the potential application of the findings and limitations in this part

7.     References

                        Check all the references carefully. Some of the related references written below may be cited and added in this section to further strengthen this work

8.     General Comments

·       Title statement is not proper. It must be rewritten

·       Minor observations in the introduction part as I reflect it on point number 3 so kindly incorporate all those points accordingly.

·       In methodology part, your proposed method must be sufficient enough so that others can redo your experiments. Also reflect effectiveness of your proposed algorithm with proper details.

·       Validation and comparison part are missing in the result section so it must be included in your study.

·       Discussion part may also be added to reflect potential application, findings and limitation of your work.

·       Check all the references carefully and incorporate the above mentioned papers in your reference list.

The article titled “A UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing IoMT 2 Healthcare Networks”, relates to my area of interest that’s why I recommend some points which may help in order to improve the readability as well as overall structure of this manuscript. The following are my suggestions, recommendations and questions for this article which may help to improve the quality of this manuscript are as follows.

A UAV-Assisted Stackelberg Game Model for Securing IoMT 2 Healthcare Networks

1.     Title statement is improper. It must be rewritten.­

2.     Abstract

·       Mention relevant background before elaborating your proposed study

·       Must use the contrast word i.e., on one hand and on the other hand.

·       By using the given proposed security algorithm, how can you relate that your work is efficient than the other techniques.

3.     Introduction (Minor revision is required in this section)

·       Background of the area may be elaborated more

·       Put some more pictures of your relevant work   

·       Related work of the proposed area must be elaborated further

·       Problem statement and proposed solution are missing

·       Motivation part of your work is missing

4.     Methodology

·       Describe your proposed method "sufficiently" detailed such that others can redo your experiment(s).

·       Proposed security algorithm needs to be compared with other related techniques to further discuss the effectiveness of your work.

5.     Results

·       Validation part in this section is missing so it needs to be added

·       Comparison with some other experiments may be elaborated more

6.     Discussions

·       Must include this part before conclusion

·       Define the potential application of the findings and limitations in this part

7.     References

                        Check all the references carefully. Some of the related references written below may be cited and added in this section to further strengthen this work

8.     General Comments

·       Title statement is not proper. It must be rewritten

·       Minor observations in the introduction part as I reflect it on point number 3 so kindly incorporate all those points accordingly.

·       In methodology part, your proposed method must be sufficient enough so that others can redo your experiments. Also reflect effectiveness of your proposed algorithm with proper details.

·       Validation and comparison part are missing in the result section so it must be included in your study.

·       Discussion part may also be added to reflect potential application, findings and limitation of your work.

·       Check all the references carefully and incorporate the above mentioned papers in your reference list.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our response letter in the attached document. 

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my concerns have been well addressed, and the revised manuscript has been much improved. I think this paper deserves to be published in its current form.

The Quality of English Language is acceptable

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors revised the article now I recommend to accept it

Moderate editing of English language required