Innovative Application of Blockchain Technology for Digital Recipe Copyright Protection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Research achievements should be added at the end of the Abstract section.

2. Naming business and commercial companies in the article is not suggested. Besides, it needs the company's agreements. (related to paragraph two of the introduction section).

3. The organization of the paper should be added at the end of the introduction section.

4. The literature review section should be separated from the introduction section.

5. Algorithms one and two have used several concepts and variables without sufficient descriptions which may confuse the readers. Authors are advised to define them before the algorithms.

6. The quality of the Figures should be improved. It is difficult to understand some of them.

7. Equations that are used from previous works must be referenced.

8. In the Initialization of PageRank values section it seems that authors just place their values in the related equation. What is the novelty of this section?

9. In section 3.3 Authors introduced the Improved Simhash Algorithm but did not prepare the algorithm details and pseudocode.

10. The used dataset must be referenced.

11. The comparison algorithms should be described in detail. Also, authors must cite them.

12. The proposed method should be compared at least with one more recent Algorithm.

13. Please add a section for the Time complexity and overhead of the proposed method.

 

14. Conclusion section seems to be large. Authors are advised to shorten it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings! Firstly, I'd like to express my sincere appreciation for the invaluable feedback and suggestions you provided on my manuscript.

In response to your comments and guidance, I have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. For specific details on the changes made and the rationale behind them, please refer to the appended section. I hope these modifications meet your expectations.

Should you have any further queries or concerns upon reviewing the updated manuscript, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am more than willing to make additional adjustments as needed.

Once again, thank you for your patience and expert guidance. I eagerly await your further feedback.

Wishing you all the best in your endeavors!

Warm regards,

LinLu Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The present work deals with a variant of the construction of a blockchain with applicability in a particular case of copyright.

The treated subject is topical in international research, being numerous studies in this sense, with functional implementations, for different degrees of security levels of protected data.

To improve the understanding of the research carried out, it would be useful:

1. the clear detailing of how point 3 on page 4 can be achieved, because from practice, this point is known to be problematic to implement in practice, with practical remedial results, from an IT point of view.

2. On page 4, at the "Consensus Layer" point, "Transactions are 185 quickly agreed between nodes in a distributed system" is realized. It is necessary to specify the relationship between the set of authentications between the involved parties and the necessary credentials management system.

3. In algorithm 1, an asymmetric encryption system is used. It is useful to specify the management mode of a user's credentials for the treated system.

4. An explanation of the parameters and their implications, from formula 2, page 16.

Certain expressions can be improved, but the article is readable in good conditions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings! Firstly, I'd like to express my sincere appreciation for the invaluable feedback and suggestions you provided on my manuscript.

In response to your comments and guidance, I have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. For specific details on the changes made and the rationale behind them, please refer to the appended section. I hope these modifications meet your expectations.

Should you have any further queries or concerns upon reviewing the updated manuscript, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am more than willing to make additional adjustments as needed.

Once again, thank you for your patience and expert guidance. I eagerly await your further feedback.

Wishing you all the best in your endeavors!

Warm regards,

LinLu Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered all my comments in the best way and now the article is in a much better shape. Therefore, I suggest accepting it.