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 revised draft made progress.
It is acceptable.
It is acceptable.
I recommend to accept it in the current version.
The experiments in this paper are fine.
The findings are sound.
In the final version, please address the remaining minor concerns of the reviewers.
The revised draft made progress.
It is acceptable.
It is acceptable.
The authors modify the manuscript according to the comments. It improves a lot compared to the previous version. However, there are still some details to be corrected to make this manusript better. Would the authors use the latex template if possible since the typewritting is not so neat, especially for the equations.
The proof of the scheme is sound. The simulation results can be improved if possible.
The novelty is fine. Are there any data in the simulation? Please list them or clain the origin if possible.
The presentation and experimental section in the paper must be improved.
[# 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 authors please make any changes to improve the readability of the paper.
The reference is insufficient. The authors need to add popular related articles to support the proposed arguments.
The authors need to add more detailed contents to enrich the proofing process.
No comments.
The paper proposed a conceptual approach. If possible, the authors please verify the applicability of the proposed algorithm.
no comment
no comment
no comment
In this article, the author proposes a blockchain-based multi-keyword verifiable symmetric searchable encryption scheme. Compared with previous work, it improves the search efficiency, ensures the fairness of the search, and can perform multi-key Word search result verification. Finally, the author uses experiments to prove that this method is safe and effective in practical applications. Here are some comments for the authors to improve the quality of this manuscript.
The experimental design should be more detailed, and the pictures will be more convincing
This is the same problem, adding your pictures will make your findings more convincing
1. I don’t know if it’s due to the system or other reasons. I didn’t see your picture in the article.
2. In the introduction, I think you can write more compactly. For example, line 45, the shortcomings of SSE are introduced before, and dynamic updates are also very important afterwards.
3. It is recommended to use subtitles to make your article clearer.
4. Please use correct template of this journal.
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.