Evaluating a Proposed E-Government Stage Model in Terms of Personal Data Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper studied the "Evaluating a Proposed E-Government Stage Model in terms of Personal Data Protection". The quality should be improved. Major revision should be done for this version of the paper as follows:
* The motive of the proposed method is not clear. The motivation of the proposed method should be stated in the introduction.
* The last paragraph of the introduction should be the structure of the article.
*Some figures are of low quality and need to be redesigned.
* The parameter of each equation must be described after using it. The parameters of many equations are not described.
*More achievements on this topic should be added for the Section "introductions".
*The cost analysis of the algorithms should be added.
* Mathematics modelling to analyze the method is not enough.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam
we greatly appreciate your comments. Please refer to the attached file for our response. We hope that our responses have persuaded you.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract is long and NOT satisfactory. It should contain the following parts:
i. The importance of or motivation for the research.
ii. The issue/argument of the research.
iii. The methodology.
iv. The result/findings.
v. The implications of the result/findings.
2. Explain the motivation pin points to make them understandable for readers. It is bit confusing. Rewrite the motivation point if possible.
3. It is recommend to add a detailed system process flow of the proposed methodology.
4. Verify all equations if they are added correctly.
5. Figure of proposed model need refinement try to sketch neatly.
6. Authors should add an algorithm to explain the proposed work and explain it in the proposed work section extensively.
7. Is the proposed system secure enough and sustainable to apply in distributed environment? If yes, kindly approach with the below work and preferably include in the related work
a. Bdtwin: an integrated framework for enhancing security and privacy in cybertwin-driven automotive industrial Internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal.
b. Blockchain and deep learning empowered secure data sharing framework for softwarized uavs. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops) (pp. 770-775). IEEE.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam
Please find the response in attached file.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is interesting to have a study like this paper proposing a model i.e. SOAR for e-government personal data protection. However, I have to suggest for rejection of this paper due to the following reasons:
- there is an insufficient and critical literature review showing limitations of prior studies on implementation models, leading to weak motivation/problem statements for this research work.
- the authors failed to explain clearly how the SOAR/AHP model can potentially tackle the issues/prior studies' limitations of personal data protection.
- the mechanisms of how the SOAR model can be realized and eventually how the outcomes of the SOAR model integrate with the AHP are unclear (though the authors provided calculation equations of matrics, the rationale of interaction between the two is missing).
- there is no presentation of results showing the validity/reliability of the model. Without the results, it is questionable about the feasibility and validity of the proposed model.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find our response in the attached file
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Necessary corrections have been made. The article is acceptable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have incorporated all the comments successfully
Author Response
Dear,
Thank you so much. Your comments highly appreciated.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
There are several essential pieces of information are missing:
- A detailed explanation of how the numbers fit in the equations from the raw data (including how the raw data is derived) of the survey (as stated in the authors' response).
- There is still no presentation of results showing the validity/reliability of the model. Although the authors stated that Figure 11 in section 4 illustrates all results are valid and the model is "improved and can be depended" - the problem with this is how the authors prove the model is improved compared with other methodologies from prior studies? Since there is no comparison presented, there is no evidence of the improvement.
- The authors should give a concise explanation of the limitations of existing methodologies instead of merely stating, "More details about limitations of prior studies and motivations of proposed model can be found on [7]. "
Author Response
Dear,
Your comments are greatly appreciated. Please refer to the attached file for our response. Thanks for reading our responses. We hope they convinced you.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
