All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The comments has been addressed and i have no further comments.
The comments has been addressed and i have no further comments.
The comments has been addressed and i have no further comments.
The comments has been addressed and i have no further comments.
All of my previous comments have been addressed.
All of my previous comments have been addressed.
All of my previous comments have been addressed.
All of my previous comments have been addressed.
Please carefully address the reviewer's comments. Both reviewers have provided valuable comments. The paper requires several amendments and corrections related to experimental design and the validity of the findings.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The manuscript presented a block-chain based technique for expressive authorization management. This work is interesting that proposed the important authorization factors like trust, cost, and cardinality part of a unified framework. However, the following comments should be addressed if the work is being considered for publication:
• In Abstract: a brief of the existing available work should be provided (maybe in 2 to 3 lines of the text).
• Line 62, the approach name “TTECCDU” has not been reflected in the abstract and title. The authors may add to these too.
• The core contribution points should be concise. Especially contribution 4 looks like a full paragraph which is incorrect approach.
• The first contribution point needs a lot of improvements. Combining multiple trust factors should not be the core objective. What the author tried to achieve by combining those should have been highlighted.
• Introduction should extend the text with the rationale of combining multi-factors for authorization purposes.
• The related work section is written well and the research gap discussion is comprehensive.
• Table 1 caption should be at the top.
• In Table 1, listed several authorization types as letters. The authors should add a separate table to provide a single-line explanation of the authorization types mentioned as letters.
• Discussion of Figure 3 should include the line numbers while referring to the code lines.
• The NEWS case study should be concise. The discussion at the moment is too extensive.
• In Figure 4, the sequencing of the mentioned steps is not very clear the figure may be re-structured and re-drawn to convey the idea in a clear and concise manner.
• Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2, and Algorithm 3 should be revised to include the system model terms instead of defining the new ones of the text style variables. The algorithm should be relatable to the given system model and use terminologies.
• Section 4.3, mainly presents the background information; therefore it should be concise and reduced.
• Figure 7 and Figure 8, and Figure 11 shows the code that has different font size. This should be adjusted.
• The Section implementation details are too large, the implementation files could be uploaded to the public repository and the images related to the code should be removed. The discussion can be further concise.
• The experimental evaluation section contains figures that have poor quality. The authors should replace with vector graphics images (All figures in the paper should be replaced accordingly, especially the experimental evaluation Section).
• The results discussions should be added to the paper (after the experimental evaluation section). The authors should present the technical discussion about the overall achievements of the work considering the evaluation of the results.
The manuscript presented a block-chain based technique for expressive authorization management. This work is interesting that proposed the important authorization factors like trust, cost, and cardinality part of a unified framework. However, the following comments should be addressed if the work is being considered for publication:
• In Abstract: a brief of the existing available work should be provided (maybe in 2 to 3 lines of the text).
• Line 62, the approach name “TTECCDU” has not been reflected in the abstract and title. The authors may add to these too.
• The core contribution points should be concise. Especially contribution 4 looks like a full paragraph which is incorrect approach.
• The first contribution point needs a lot of improvements. Combining multiple trust factors should not be the core objective. What the author tried to achieve by combining those should have been highlighted.
• Introduction should extend the text with the rationale of combining multi-factors for authorization purposes.
• The related work section is written well and the research gap discussion is comprehensive.
• Table 1 caption should be at the top.
• In Table 1, listed several authorization types as letters. The authors should add a separate table to provide a single-line explanation of the authorization types mentioned as letters.
• Discussion of Figure 3 should include the line numbers while referring to the code lines.
• The NEWS case study should be concise. The discussion at the moment is too extensive.
• In Figure 4, the sequencing of the mentioned steps is not very clear the figure may be re-structured and re-drawn to convey the idea in a clear and concise manner.
• Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2, and Algorithm 3 should be revised to include the system model terms instead of defining the new ones of the text style variables. The algorithm should be relatable to the given system model and use terminologies.
• Section 4.3, mainly presents the background information; therefore it should be concise and reduced.
• Figure 7 and Figure 8, and Figure 11 shows the code that has different font size. This should be adjusted.
• The Section implementation details are too large, the implementation files could be uploaded to the public repository and the images related to the code should be removed. The discussion can be further concise.
• The experimental evaluation section contains figures that have poor quality. The authors should replace with vector graphics images (All figures in the paper should be replaced accordingly, especially the experimental evaluation Section).
• The results discussions should be added to the paper (after the experimental evaluation section). The authors should present the technical discussion about the overall achievements of the work considering the evaluation of the results.
The manuscript presented a block-chain based technique for expressive authorization management. This work is interesting that proposed the important authorization factors like trust, cost, and cardinality part of a unified framework. However, the following comments should be addressed if the work is being considered for publication:
• In Abstract: a brief of the existing available work should be provided (maybe in 2 to 3 lines of the text).
• Line 62, the approach name “TTECCDU” has not been reflected in the abstract and title. The authors may add to these too.
• The core contribution points should be concise. Especially contribution 4 looks like a full paragraph which is incorrect approach.
• The first contribution point needs a lot of improvements. Combining multiple trust factors should not be the core objective. What the author tried to achieve by combining those should have been highlighted.
• Introduction should extend the text with the rationale of combining multi-factors for authorization purposes.
• The related work section is written well and the research gap discussion is comprehensive.
• Table 1 caption should be at the top.
• In Table 1, listed several authorization types as letters. The authors should add a separate table to provide a single-line explanation of the authorization types mentioned as letters.
• Discussion of Figure 3 should include the line numbers while referring to the code lines.
• The NEWS case study should be concise. The discussion at the moment is too extensive.
• In Figure 4, the sequencing of the mentioned steps is not very clear the figure may be re-structured and re-drawn to convey the idea in a clear and concise manner.
• Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2, and Algorithm 3 should be revised to include the system model terms instead of defining the new ones of the text style variables. The algorithm should be relatable to the given system model and use terminologies.
• Section 4.3, mainly presents the background information; therefore it should be concise and reduced.
• Figure 7 and Figure 8, and Figure 11 shows the code that has different font size. This should be adjusted.
• The Section implementation details are too large, the implementation files could be uploaded to the public repository and the images related to the code should be removed. The discussion can be further concise.
• The experimental evaluation section contains figures that have poor quality. The authors should replace with vector graphics images (All figures in the paper should be replaced accordingly, especially the experimental evaluation Section).
• The results discussions should be added to the paper (after the experimental evaluation section). The authors should present the technical discussion about the overall achievements of the work considering the evaluation of the results.
The manuscript presented a block-chain based technique for expressive authorization management. This work is interesting that proposed the important authorization factors like trust, cost, and cardinality part of a unified framework. However, the following comments should be addressed if the work is being considered for publication:
• In Abstract: a brief of the existing available work should be provided (maybe in 2 to 3 lines of the text).
• Line 62, the approach name “TTECCDU” has not been reflected in the abstract and title. The authors may add to these too.
• The core contribution points should be concise. Especially contribution 4 looks like a full paragraph which is incorrect approach.
• The first contribution point needs a lot of improvements. Combining multiple trust factors should not be the core objective. What the author tried to achieve by combining those should have been highlighted.
• Introduction should extend the text with the rationale of combining multi-factors for authorization purposes.
• The related work section is written well and the research gap discussion is comprehensive.
• Table 1 caption should be at the top.
• In Table 1, listed several authorization types as letters. The authors should add a separate table to provide a single-line explanation of the authorization types mentioned as letters.
• Discussion of Figure 3 should include the line numbers while referring to the code lines.
• The NEWS case study should be concise. The discussion at the moment is too extensive.
• In Figure 4, the sequencing of the mentioned steps is not very clear the figure may be re-structured and re-drawn to convey the idea in a clear and concise manner.
• Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2, and Algorithm 3 should be revised to include the system model terms instead of defining the new ones of the text style variables. The algorithm should be relatable to the given system model and use terminologies.
• Section 4.3, mainly presents the background information; therefore it should be concise and reduced.
• Figure 7 and Figure 8, and Figure 11 shows the code that has different font size. This should be adjusted.
• The Section implementation details are too large, the implementation files could be uploaded to the public repository and the images related to the code should be removed. The discussion can be further concise.
• The experimental evaluation section contains figures that have poor quality. The authors should replace with vector graphics images (All figures in the paper should be replaced accordingly, especially the experimental evaluation Section).
• The results discussions should be added to the paper (after the experimental evaluation section). The authors should present the technical discussion about the overall achievements of the work considering the evaluation of the results.
The paper is well written. However, there are several technical typos that need to be fixed:
1> For instance, in section 4.1, U_1 \in r_1 should be u_1 \in r_1 and so on
The references to the literature are also sufficient.
All the tables and figures are well presented.
All the details about the approach and experiment are mentioned.
The results are clearly discussed.
The research is within the scope of the journal.
The research questions are well defined and discussed.
The experiment is well organized.
The approach is explained in adequate detail.
The approach is novel, however, the algorithms should be combined to show the overall approach because most of the algorithms have duplicate computations and thus do not make sense.
It is not clear if the data used in the experiment is public. I suggest making the data public and providing the link in the paper or explaining the data features and basis otherwise.
The conclusions are well stated.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.