Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, a reputation-based spatial crowdsourcing system was presented using Blockchain for vehicular networks. In this reviewer’s opinion, this work is interesting, and the method described in the manuscript appears to be sound. However, the manuscript should be revised and the authors need to take into consideration the following points:

1. Overall the manuscript is well-structured and detailed, and all sections and subsections make sense in the overall organization. However, the introduction of the manuscript doesn’t create a good impression. It would be expected a bit more balanced introduction as a roadmap of the paper. The introduction section should be restructured and follow the journal requirement and format as a scientific research paper.

2. In relation to the background of Blockchain, there seems to be a lack in the literature. It is therefore required to explain this cutting-edge technology along with its advantages and limitations which help readers can understand the quality of the paper. Please improve the literature of the work.

 

3. In Blockchain, a “Block” holds a number of elements, i.e. index, data, hash, previous hash, and timestamp. To know Blockchain, it is important to understand what a “hash” is. However, the aforesaid details have not been presented in this manuscript.

4. It is necessary to elaborate on the technical principles of Blockchain while also clarifying how data is stored in the block body and how data structures are constructed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comment:

This paper is very well writtend and scientifically sound.

I think that authors did a great research and, in my opinion, it can be accepted in this current form.

Congratulation.

 

Only some minor comments, that authors can include to strengthen the introduction and motivations.

--

 

1) In the background introduction authors are saying that EVs will require many dynamic information. I think so too and recently I have read this interesting paper that I think strenghten the authors' motivation. Therefore I suggest to add it as reference:

Galvagno, A., Previti, U., Famoso, F., & Brusca, S. (2021). An Innovative Methodology to Take into Account Traffic Information on WLTP Cycle for Hybrid Vehicles. Energies, 14(6), 1548.

 

2) Meanwhile, I strongly suggest to strengthen the motivation about the adoption of the blockchain, leveraging also from other industrial applications. This will help authors to win the scepticism of the community of scholars and practitioners who are against the PoW Blockchain, tokenomics and NFT applications.

I can suggest the following revelant use cases:

 

a) Chiacchio, F., D’Urso, D., Oliveri, L. M., Spitaleri, A., Spampinato, C., & Giordano, D. (2022). A Non-Fungible Token Solution for the Track and Trace of Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Applied Sciences, 12(8), 4019.

b) Babel, M., Gramlich, V., Körner, M. F., Sedlmeir, J., Strüker, J., & Zwede, T. (2022). Enabling end-to-end digital carbon emission tracing with shielded NFTs. Energy Informatics, 5(1), 1-21.

c) Malik, N., Wei, M. Y., Appel, G., & Luo, L. (2022). Blockchain Technology for Creative Industry: Current State and Research Opportunities. International Journal of Research in Marketing.

 

-

Section 4.5

3) Some references are missing (?). Please fix it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors introduce a blockchain platform, where the EVs act as the blockchain nodes, and a 7 reputation-based incentive mechanism for vehicular networks.

1-explain figure 3 with more details 

2-URC. it should be URC: and others in section 2.2 

3-results figures are confusing and need to be reorgnized as A and B 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is improved and the authors have addressed the points raised in the previous review. Therefore, the paper is recommended for publication.