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.
I am pleased to inform you that your work has now been accepted for publication in PeerJ Computer Science.
Please be advised that you cannot add or remove authors or references post-acceptance, regardless of the reviewers' request(s).
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. I look forward to your continued contributions on behalf of the Editors of PeerJ Computer Science.
With kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Well revised.
Well revised
Sufficient
My comments are addressed, the paper can be accepted.
My comments are addressed, the paper can be accepted.
My comments are addressed, the paper can be accepted.
My comments are addressed, the paper can be accepted.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
-
-
-
This paper presents a searchable encryption-supported, blockchain-based data storage solution for IoT. I have a few comments:
1. Why was AES chosen as the encryption algorithm? Which variant (e.g., AES-128, AES-192, AES-256) has been used?
2. How is the computational cost calculated? Please provide detailed metrics or formulas used in the evaluation.
3. The methodology for setting up and experimenting with the blockchain environment is not clearly explained. More clarity is needed.
4. The author may consider reading the following literature to better understand experimental setup strategies:
"Secure Electronic Health Record Storage and Retrieval Using Blockchain and Encryption for Healthcare Applications".
**PeerJ Staff Note:** The PeerJ's policy is that any additional references suggested during peer review should only be included if the authors find them relevant and useful.
This paper proposes a comprehensive solution based on consortium blockchain and a searchable encryption data sharing scheme in smart healthcare. The proposed solution, named "SENSH," enables efficient authorization management through Bloom filters and ensures fast queries, and saves storage space. Experimental results show that SENSH offers authorization management, privacy protection, defense against tampering, and anti-replay and DDOS attacks. Compared with existing schemes, SENSH has lower GAS consumption, computation cost, and execution time.
The paper is well-structured and organized, and follows a typical pattern. Relevant details have been provided, and the argument is supported by the experimental data. However, I have a few reservations that need to be addressed:
1- What is the research gap that this research aims to address? A lot of research exists in the field of healthcare using blockchain. How is the proposed SENSH different?
2- How have you ensured that the proposed SENSH is robust and will work in the actual environment?
3- The results are carried out in a controlled environment, which does not necessarily reflect the actual working of SNESH. How have you ensured that the results are not biased?
4- The authors claim that the proposed SNESH is resilient against authorization management, privacy protection, defense against tampering, and anti-replay and DDOS attacks. Which results prove this claim?
5- I see that the proposed SNESH is claimed to be very effective in every aspect. Are there any limitations of SNESH?
-
-
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.