Product Authentication Technology Integrating Blockchain and Traceability Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 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 to explain the proposed algorithm nicely

7.       The authors have claimed the key size of encryption algorithm and also given the static analysis of IPFS storage layer. How the authors work is different from these works which is already performed over IPFS storage layer

a.       Secure healthcare framework using blockchain and public key cryptography. In Blockchain Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy (pp. 185-202). Springer, Cham.

 

b.      A Secure and Distributed Framework for sharing COVID-19 patient Reports using Consortium Blockchain and IPFS. In 2020 Sixth International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC) (pp. 231-236). IEEE.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors investigate some problems in product authenticity, such as the low availability of product traceability information, and the data integrity and security in the product transaction process. This paper proposes a product authentication scheme by integrating the blockchain and traceability structure to improve data security. Experiment results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. However, I still have some concerns as follows.

1. The contributions in this paper should be enhanced and presented clearly. Compared with existing works, what are the advantages of the methods proposed in this paper?

2. What are the overheads (e.g., system setup, data storage, computing efficiency, etc.) of the proposed scheme? More analysis should be provided.

3. There are more opportunities for conducting meaningful experiments to comprehensively evaluate the system performance and overheads.

4. Literature review is not sufficient. More technical papers about blockchain should be investigated. For example:

- VQL: efficient and verifiable cloud query services for blockchain systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

- Towards scaling blockchain systems via sharding. ACM International Conference on Management of Data.

- BlockShare: A Blockchain empowered system for privacy-preserving verifiable data sharing. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin.

- Revealing every story of data in blockchain systems. ACM Sigmod Record.

- SymmeProof: Compact Zero-Knowledge Argument for Blockchain Confidential Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.

- Fine-grained, secure and efficient data provenance on blockchain systems. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment.

- B-DNS: A secure and efficient DNS based on the blockchain technology. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering.

5. What are the shortcomings of the system and future research directions? More discussion could be added.

6. The English writing of this paper should be enhanced.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

all the comments are successfully incorporated

Reviewer 2 Report

All ploblems have been solved.