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 paper has addressed all problems.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thanks to the authors for the review work done. The authors have appropriately addressed and corrected all the issues as per my previous comments. The related work has been enriched, and the indistinct description, as well as deficient analysis, have been improved and refined. More discussions have also been added. This paper has been comprehensively improved, in terms of correctness, completeness and readability to reach the standard for publication.
no comments
no comments
no comments
I suggest the author should improve your English writing.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The authors have addressed my concerns. This manuscript is recommended for acceptance.
N/A.
N/A.
Authors revised the manuscript according to reviewers comments and suggestions. Manuscript quality is enhanced and its scientific value increased. However, going through the manuscript one can easily spot few lingual and grammatical issues which needs to be addressed. so, authors suggested to get the manuscript proofread by a fluent English speaker to avoid such issues. Also, authors need to double check the reference style which has to meet with the journal one.
No comments
No comments
In my opinion, I think the paper needs major revision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
In this manuscript, the authors propose a multi copy integrity check scheme that supports cloud based IoT probability auditing. They also demonstrated the performance of this new design through analysis and implementation. The overall idea and structure of the article are clear. However, there are some improvements that need to be made before it can be considered for publication.
1. It is recommended that the author improve the text and seek guidance from fluent English speakers to increase the readability of this article.
2. It is recommended to clarify the connection between the comparison schemes and the reasons for their selection in the "Experiment" section, and to provide a more detailed description of the significance of the comparison content.
3. It is recommended that the author provide new insights and future research directions in the "Conclusion" section.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
In this manuscript, authors proposed a multi-copy integrity verification scheme that supports probabilistic auditing. Under the CDH assumption, the proposed scheme has been proven to be secure and it aims to solve the problem of simultaneous verification of the integrity of multiple replicas. Authors suggested to address the following comments and suggestions when preparing the revised version:
= Abstract: section needs to be re-drafted to be self-contained means it has to clearly show the hypothesis, methodology, techniques and tools used, and the results obtained.
= Keywords: Authors suggested to update the keywords by selecting more relevant terms. Keywords play important role in the appearance of the manuscript in scholars search which will give it more hits and more citations.
= Introduction: authors advised to add one more paragraph at the end of the section to show the organization of the rest of the paper.
= What limitations authors faced during this research work? If there is any.
= What assumptions authors made during the simulation phase of this research work? If there is any.
= What limitations authors faced during this research work? If there is any.
= Authors suggested to update the introduction and the related work sections by including more of the recent published works in the field.
= Conclusion: The conclusion should be abstracted so authors need to consider re-drafting it.
= Authors need to confirm that all acronyms are defined before being used for first time.
= Authors need to confirm that all mathematical notations are defined when being used for first time.
= Authors suggested to proofread the manuscript after addressing all comments to avoid any typo, grammatical, and lingual mistakes and errors.
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.