Mathematical Model Investigation of a Technological Structure for Personal Data Protection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting.

Author Response

Thanks for the review - some changes are made based all reviewers' remarks

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

In this article, the authors presented a point of view on transferring some activities for personal data processing from a traditional system to cloud environment. They investigated what is difference between the two versions of data processing. For this goal a preliminary deterministic formalization of the two cases by using Data Flow Diagram is presented. The second part is organizing a mathematical model to investigate on the base of Markov chain apparatus. Analytical models are designed and their solution is made. A discussion of obtained assessment based on graphical presentation of analytical results is presented.

The article is well prepared and well written, few typos are observed, accommodate them.

The article is related to the aim and scope of axiom and will contribute positively to the literature.

After these changes article can be accepted for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the review and corrections presented in the article. The appropriate corrections have been made for those that I was able to understand, for example proposed correction in the Abstract and in Figures 1 &2, replacement of “,”with “.” In Figures 3 & 4, Table 1 and in the equations in pages 6 & 7.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author suggested a mathematical model to investigate of a technological structure for personal data protection. Overall the idea is of interest for the readers of axioms, however, I have the following minor comments:

1. Please give attention to grammar.

2. Abstract should be supported by some results.

3. Please give a number to each equation.

4. Comparisons with previous studies were missed.

5. Line 235, please revise this equation, Is it contain the single unknown p₂.

Author Response

Thanks for the review and remarks – I tried to make revision based on all of them, for example:

[1] Grammar check is done;

[2] Some results are added in the Abstract;

[3] Numbering of equations is introduced, although it seems to me that it is not necessary, because there are 2 equations and two systems (the rest are expressions for specific solutions for probability values);

[4] There is a fairly extensive review of possible solutions in the introduction, with references [7-21], and I take this to be sufficient, because the modeling research being done is quite numerous and early. To explain this, a paragraph has been added to the Introduction describing the approaches used in computing research;

[5] Yes, the equation in row 235 is correct, because this is calculation of value for p2 based on last equation in the system of probabilities.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well presented and nicely written. The manuscript provides a clear explanation of the problems related to personal data protection, and then moves on to clearly sets the scene and rationale for the work undertaken. There is a sound methodology to the research work, along with appropriate theory. The results presented are appropriate to the presented work described. The conclusions match the rest of the manuscript. References are a good mix of sources and are recently published.

Author Response

Thanks for the review - some corrections are made based on all reviewers'remarks

Reviewer 5 Report

The article presents the mathematical model investigation of a technological structure for personal data protection. The article is well written and well structured. The presentation of the material is logical. The quality of the drawings is high. A fairly detailed analysis of the method is given in the article. Also, a comparative analysis of the proposed method and methods of other authors is carried out in the article. There are several comments on the article.

Questions and comments on the article:
1. The ‘Introduction’ section is not comprehensive and well-organized enough. Research background and recent development of similar studies should be reviewed, and research methods, innovation and significance of your paper should be stated. Please enrich the ‘Introduction’ section.
2. Figure 1 and Figure 2 contain the Cyrillic alphabet.
3. I believe that the "Notation and Abbreviations" section of the article is necessary for the convenience of readers.
4. It is necessary to add a comparison of the results obtained with the data of other authors.
5. It is necessary to indicate the boundaries for applying the results of the study.
6. Please formulate the directions for further research on this topic in the "Conclusions" section.

I believe that these comments should be corrected before the article is published in the Axioms journal.

In my opinion this article is interesting and worthy. However, the article has a number of shortcomings. To accept this paper for publication in the Axioms, some improvements and revisions are required as specified in the review to the Author.

Author Response

Thanks for the review and remarks – I tried to make revision based on all of them, for example:

[1] Yes, section “Related work” is not included in the article, but I tried to use proposed article structure of the journal. In this reason, the Introduction consists of review of selected publications related to the discussed research (references [7-21]) and in order to indicate the variety of approaches used in modeling computer objects, a new paragraph has been added specifying that the choice of method depends on the goal set before each study. Yes, it is possible to further explain the approaches and applications, but this would significantly increase the volume of the introduction compared to the other sections, and I think that what is presented is enough.

[2] Figures 1 & 2 are corrected

[3] Abbreviation are added in the end of the article

[4] It is difficult to make the proposed comparison, because the problem discussed in the article is strictly specific, and it is unlikely that similar studies can be found - at least I have not been able to do this.

[5] & [6] I think that this is made by adding two paragraph in the end of Conclusion with adding 3 new references