Citizens’ Perception of Blockchain-Based E-Voting Systems: Focusing on TAM
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Line 69~76. Authors are advised to avoid these politically charged comments and quotes. It is possible to discuss relevant electoral fraud, but try not to label specific countries, which is unfair and inappropriate.
2. I don't understand why the author uses the election results of Uzbekistan as an example, and the information quoted by the author seems not to be official scientific literature. I'm not sure it's appropriate for the author to comment on this information.
3. The citation method in Figure 2: Source: Liang, Y [33], I am not sure whether it conforms to the journal format specification.
4.Line 181-207 does not recommend that authors treat a sentence as a paragraph by itself. There are too many paragraphs in this position.
5.Line 337, case sensitive.
6.338-397 Authors should not define a format themselves. For example, a single word is a paragraph of Perceived Security. And slanted text as a separate paragraph: H3. Perceived Ease of Use has a positive impact on Attitude Towards Use.
7. In Chapter 3, the author mixes the method with the experimental results and lacks a detailed explanation of the results.
8. line 596 Green ICT The concept doesn't seem appropriate to me. Because the author is dealing with electronic voting, this is a different concept.
Percent match: 23%？That seems too high.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript on citizen perceptions of blockchain-based e-voting systems in Uzbekistan, with a focus on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). We are confident that the revisions made have strengthened the manuscript and effectively addressed the reviewer's feedback. We are grateful for the valuable input provided, and we believe that these enhancements significantly contribute to the quality and relevance of our research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presented has a very important theme for today.
Furthermore, it is very complete, it has a well-defined organizational structure, in which it has complete topics that are connected, generating no doubts for the reader.
Below, I suggest some recommendations, to qualify this research, including:
- Please improve the Summary of this research, remember the summary is the first aspect that the reader reads, and consecutively it must be well defined, to avoid any doubt and consecutively the research can be cited more in the future;
- Please expand and improve the quality of the figures in this research. Note that many of them have texts, which make reading and understanding difficult;
Finally, I suggest:
- Brazil already uses electronic voting, in all its spheres, including municipal, state, and federal. Given this perspective, I suggest describing the Brazilian elections as a case study of success. To demonstrate that the research cited is extremely worldwide, after all the Brazilian system uses it.
In this way, we will demonstrate the relevance of electronic voting
- Blockchain technology has been widely used, as it is a safe and protective technology. However, the relevance/differentiation of the Acceptance Model (TAM) was not clear. Could you please explain this aspect better?
Please describe the importance of this model compared to other similar models, and the importance of this model for current research;
Congratulations, dear authors!
Grateful.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful suggestions. We have improved the summary for better clarity and consistency, enhancing its readability and potential for future citations. The quality of figures has been enhanced to ensure clearer communication of our research findings. Already adoption blockchain-based e-voting systems to handle elections to be transparent and strengthens the global significance of electronic voting systems. Regarding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), we have provided a clearer explanation of its relevance and differentiation, emphasizing its importance in our study of blockchain-based e-voting systems. We appreciate your feedback and look forward to the continued improvement of our research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI noticed that the author had made the necessary optimizations to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. In addition, the placement of the figure in the text seems wrong(probably because of the review mode), suggest modify follow-up.
