A Hierarchical Blockchain-Assisted Conditional Privacy-Preserving Authentication Scheme for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and consistent with the journal. I have some comments in order to enable the authors to improve their work.

 

The structure of the paper should be streamlined with a smaller number of sections, maintaining the following contents: introduction; literature review; methodology; results and discussion; conclusions and further research. The literature review should be extended and updated (there are no citations referred to 2020 and 2021).

 

Add in the abstract a sentence about future research.

 

I appreciate that the introduction contains information about the research contributions and the description of the structure of the paper. However, a literature review should be addressed more in section 2.

 

Section 4 and section 5 can be merged.

 

I find that the paper is developed from a methodological point of view, while the part of discussion and practical implications of the work is a little lacking. Emphasize this in the final part of section 7 and in the conclusions.

 

The conclusions must be reformulated as they are not consistent at the moment. In addition, they must clearly highlight the ideas for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed a hierarchical blockchain-assisted conditional privacy-
preserving authentication(CPPA) scheme for VANETs.

I have the following comments to be addressed:

• The abstract does not have a scenario. is it fog-iov networks? to do what? what is the application?  
• the performance of the method needs to be clearly outlined with numbers. For example, the computation cost  reduces xx% compared with .... 
• Figure 2 has been referred 2 pages before. Also, the figure does not reflect the concept clearly.
• In section 3, looks like to be Preliminaries, not system model
• It seems the name for sections 4 is system model
• Section 5 starts with "In this section, we go over our plan in great depth." but it does not reveal any information
• I would see a table of notations in system model as well.
• bullet presentations reduces the readability of your paper. Try to get rid of them and explain them into paragraphs
• There is no connection between the sections. improve the flow of the paper.
• I would like to suggest the following related papers to be considered:

X. Li, C. Tan, M. Liu, T. H. Luan, L. Gao and Y. Qu, "A Blockchain-Based Cooperative Perception in Internet of Vehicles," 2021 IEEE 94th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2021-Fall), 2021, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/VTC2021-Fall52928.2021.9625169.

 

S. Iranmanesh, F. S. Abkenar, A. Jamalipour and R. Raad, "A Heuristic Distributed Scheme to Detect Falsification of Mobility Patterns in Internet of Vehicles," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 719-727, 1 Jan.1, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3085315.

 

T. A. Butt, R. Iqbal, K. Salah, M. Aloqaily and Y. Jararweh, "Privacy Management in Social Internet of Vehicles: Review, Challenges and Blockchain Based Solutions," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 79694-79713, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2922236.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors dealt with a current issue the paper is well structured, clearly written. - insert representative figures in the introductory part, - - the conclusions must be increased, also referring to future work -the English language is good, check the grammar part, bibliographic suggestions:
Decision tree method to analyze the performance of lane support systems G Pappalardo, S Cafiso, A Di Graziano, A Severino Sustainability 13 (2), 846

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf