Integrity and Privacy Assurance Framework for Remote Healthcare Monitoring Based on IoT
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a proposed telematics architecture/framework aimed at ensuring the integrity and privacy of data transmitted in a remote health monitoring environment.
The article is not of sufficient quality to be published in a relevant journal. Among other issues, the following should be mentioned:
- There is no innovation with respect to other more advanced proposals on the use of blockchain in the field of health available in the scientific/technological literature.
- Blockchain is a suitable technology to guarantee decentralized transparency and security in data access, thanks to the immutability of the transaction records it stores. It does not seem necessary, nor convenient, to use blockchain solely to guarantee data integrity and privacy. There are other more efficient alternatives that offer the same results.
- The framework presented includes a centralising element, the RHM centre, which does not seem compatible with a decentralised system such as Blockchain. While this may be correct, it is worth clarifying.
- Many national legislations impose that all or some of a person's medical data can be erased upon request. The immutability of data in a blockchain network is a potential problem in such cases. Several solutions have been proposed in the literature, but do not seem to have been addressed in the proposal.
- It is unclear in what way smart contracts are used. Their use does not seem to be aligned with the purpose of these elements in a blockchain network.
- The manuscript does not include a bibliography section and contains multiple errors that make it difficult to read comfortably (especially in the tables).
- The background section does not include relevant work related to the proposal submitted.
- Sections 2.1 to 2.7 should be summarised, as they do not provide the reader with much information.
- The validation of the proposal is primarily of a theoretical nature. A proposal such as the one presented should be validated in a more realistic environment (although not necessarily in a real environment).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript for MDPI. Your insightful feedback and constructive comments have been immensely valuable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We truly appreciate your expertise and thorough examination of our research.
Your dedication to ensuring the integrity and rigor of the publication process is commendable, and we are grateful for your commitment to advancing scientific knowledge in our field.
Once again, thank you for your valuable contribution to our manuscript. We look forward to incorporating your suggestions and resubmitting the revised version for further consideration.
Best regards,
Salah Alharbi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The references are missing and need to be completed.
2. Provide some quantifiable indicators in the summary.
3. There are some messy codes in the references cited in the text. Please check carefully.
4. Figure 20 is unclear and needs to be adjusted.
5. Please provide sufficient reasons for using formula 9 to calculate the average value.
6.It might interest you to refer to these recent articles to support your claims and draw more insights in Introduction:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117589
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English Language should be edited.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript for MDPI. Your insightful feedback and constructive comments have been immensely valuable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We truly appreciate your expertise and thorough examination of our research.
Your dedication to ensuring the integrity and rigor of the publication process is commendable, and we are grateful for your commitment to advancing scientific knowledge in our field.
Once again, thank you for your valuable contribution to our manuscript. We look forward to incorporating your suggestions and resubmitting the revised version for further consideration.
Best regards,
Salah Alharbi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It would be better present the work by third person ,not first person such as we our etc.
2. Section2 the literatures should not presented one by one, it should present with the summary sentences.
3. 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 they are not enough to be a paragraph, so please revise them with a comprehensive paragraph.
4. 2. Background and Literature Review, why does it include the hardware 2.5? Is the hardware used in this paper?
5. Figure 8-15 17/18the source code should not presented in paper, they may presented in an supply file uploaded.
6. Table 5. is missing
7. The experimental scheme in this paper is not provided, so please added them.
8. This paper has many subtitle that with the short content ,the logic should be rewritten.
9. What is the highlight of this paper?
10. The abstracts and conclusions should be improved with the details highlights.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript for MDPI. Your insightful feedback and constructive comments have been immensely valuable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We truly appreciate your expertise and thorough examination of our research.
Your dedication to ensuring the integrity and rigor of the publication process is commendable, and we are grateful for your commitment to advancing scientific knowledge in our field.
Once again, thank you for your valuable contribution to our manuscript. We look forward to incorporating your suggestions and resubmitting the revised version for further consideration.
Best regards,
Salah Alharbi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper was revised well.
