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 most critical of the 3 reviewers from the first round, now recommends accepting the paper. I reviewed the authors' response to the other 2 reviews to confirm that all feedback has been addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
The reviewers identified major issues that need to be addressed before your manuscript can be considered. I've here summarized the most important concerns of the reviewers. If you choose to revise, please address all of the feedback and concerns of the reviewers.
Writing Quality: All 3 reviewers identified issues with the writing quality. The writing quality and organization, as well as the presentation of the formal model, need major improvements. This manuscript requires major editorial work to get into the condition necessary for publication. Remember that PeerJ Computer Science doesn't provide copy-editing. Thus, the authors need to get this into appropriate shape prior to submission of a revision. The reviewers identified significant issues with writing quality, style, structure, organization, etc. In particular, Reviewer 3 provides some detailed feedback regarding basic reporting, such as identifying parts of the paper that require being rewritten, various structural and organizational issues that should be fixed, etc. Reviewer 1 also indicates that "unclear phrasing and grammatical errors in multiple sections".
Technical Approach: The methods are not described clearly. Multiple reviewers commented on mathematical notation needing additional clarity, one of which suggested adding a table to summarize the notation. Reviewers indicate that some notation is not clearly defined. Reviewer 1 indicates that the smart contract section lacks detail, and that pseudocode or a flowchart is needed.
Experimental Design: Reviewers 1 and 3 both identify deficiencies in the experimental design. In particular, Reviewer 1 indicates a lack of real world validation.
Novelty and Contributions: The most significant concern expressed by reviewers (in particular, Reviewer 3) is the significance and the novelty of the work. Reviewer 3 indicates that it is unclear what, if any, contributions of the work are novel in relation to prior works from the literature. Reviewer 1 also indicates that the contributions are unclear, and that the novelty of each contribution needs to be explained and distinguished from prior work. Reviewer 1 also indicates that references are out-dated.
**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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] 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
1. English language quality needs improvement
There are noticeable language issues in the manuscript, including unclear phrasing and grammatical errors in multiple sections. Improving the clarity of English will help readers better understand the content.
2. Limited and outdated references
The current manuscript includes a limited number of references. It is recommended to appropriately add some recent works, particularly related to blockchain, game theory, and smart contracts in the context of data sharing, to strengthen the background and literature support..
3. Contribution points need to be clearly distinguished
The current description of the main contributions (lines 67–84) contains some overlap and lacks clarity. It is recommended to clearly define the novelty of each contribution and explain how it improves upon or differs from existing work.
4. Insufficient definitions of variables and symbols
From line 193 onward, the paper includes many formulas and variables, but lacks systematic explanation of their meanings, units, and ranges. A dedicated table of symbols or a variable description section is recommended before the modeling part.
5. Smart contract section lacks detail
The description of smart contract implementation starting from line 524 is too general. It would be helpful to include more details, such as pseudo-code, a flowchart, or specific triggering conditions, to make the system design more complete and easier to understand.
6. Conclusion lacks integration of key findings
The conclusion section (lines 541–554) largely repeats the abstract and does not effectively summarize the main findings from the simulations and analysis. It is suggested to include more discussion on the results and their implications for future system implementation.
1. Lack of real-world validation
The paper provides a solid theoretical foundation and simulation analysis, but lacks real-world data or practical case studies. It is recommended to include actual railway datasets or case-based validation to enhance the practicality and credibility of the proposed method.
The paper proposes an innovative mechanism combining a three-party evolutionary game model with a reputation system and smart contract-based automation. The theoretical model is well-structured and logically consistent.
The simulation experiments are thorough and cover multiple parameter settings, with meaningful visualizations that support the analysis.
The work provides a theoretical foundation for promoting data sharing in the railway industry and offers a detailed model of participant behavior, which could support future system design and deployment.
no comment
English grammar requires careful checking, polishing and revision, especially for contributions where the first letter needs to be capitalized.
The experimental design is quite complete, but the presentation of the results needs to be revised. For instance, the lines in Figure 2 can be made thicker, and the coordinate axes in Figure 3 are unclear (they should be like those in Figure 4). Figures 5 and 6 are rather messy. Could some data be reduced for presentation and the key points be emphasized? The same applies to Figures 7 and 8.
no comment
The description in the methods section needs to be improved; the writing is too simplistic. Is there any reference method? What are the differences from other methods? Is it necessary to conduct comparisons among these methods?
The manuscript, in its current state, has several issues regarding clarity, structure, and adherence to academic standards that need to be addressed. The presentation of the research objectives is confusing and lacks precision. They must be rewritten to be clear and concise. Furthermore, several sections of the manuscript are difficult to follow. For example, the text between lines 42 and 52 in the introduction reads as a list of unintegrated facts rather than a synthesized argument. The paragraph from lines 193 to 208 is also disorganized, mixing paragraph text with bullet points in a way that disrupts readability. Also , the overall organization of the paper could be improved. Section 2.3 seems misplaced within the "Related Work" section, and its relevance there is unclear. The authors should reconsider its placement to ensure a logical flow. Furthermore, the "Related Work" section would be significantly enhanced by the inclusion of a summary table to compare and contrast the key contributions of existing literature. Finally , the manuscript fails to use a consistent citation style. For instance, the references on lines 110 and 116 follow different formats. The authors must correct the entire manuscript to adhere to a single, appropriate referencing standard.
The core methodological description of the study is not presented with sufficient clarity, which prevents a thorough evaluation of its design. The mathematical notations are not well organized and are presented without clear definitions. Many parameters are used without being properly identified or declared beforehand.
The most significant concern with the manuscript is the unclear novelty and contribution, which directly impacts the validity of its findings. The authors have not adequately explained how their research improves upon or distinguishes itself from existing key works in the field. Specifically, the manuscript's contribution is doubtful when compared to foundational articles such as "How to Enhance Data Sharing in Digital Government Construction: A Tripartite Stochastic Evolutionary Game Approach" and "A Dynamic Incentive Mechanism for Smart Grid Data Sharing Based on Evolutionary Game Theory." To establish the validity of their findings, the authors must explicitly and thoroughly articulate what makes their approach novel. They need to add a detailed comparison explaining how their model, assumptions, or results differ from and advance upon these (and other) relevant studies. Without this clarification, the contribution of the paper remains questionable.
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.