Performance Optimization of a Blockchain-Enabled Information and Data Exchange Platform for Smart Grids

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an area of intense research activities, with a plethora of algorithms dealing with similar problems, hence in this sense it is of interest to the Journal. However, I have the following main comments:

1. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

2. I think the simulation results given by the authors (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8) are not enough to show the effectiveness of method directly. Therefore, more simulations should be added to validate the work .

3. Please double check the references list. I strongly suggest the authors brush up the format of the references in a careful way to achieve the publishable standard.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken up an interesting topic. There are certain areas where modifications/changes required.

1. A comparison table can be included -Block chain platform and conventional platform

2. Language usage needs to be looked carefully- example-line number 46,47-usage of word more, line number 148.

3. Authors should validate and elaborate on the third point mentioned in "The key contributions of the papers" 

4. There should be a separate section on how optimization is carried out using ANN with necessary mathematical model relevant to the optimization process. This is missing in the manuscript.

5. In line number 362, why two columns are introduced under the same information-" information producer"

6. Usage of direct speech can be avoided, "we" etc.

7. Difference between the graph 7a and 7b has to be made clear, between whom the transactions are considered. Why the graph goes increasing/decreasing (graph 7 and 8), reason for saturation in TPS etc are to explained in the text.

8. What will be the impact of this saturation on the transfer rate and efficiency of the block chain platform needs discussion. How the conventional platform handles this problem.

 

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Increase the font and/or font quality on figures 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6,

2. Additionally explain the experimental part of the work.

3. Show formulas (1) to (4) with symbols instead of text.

4. Expand the list of references with more recent references.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors present the research work titled "Performance Optimization of a Blockchain-Enabled Information and Data Exchange Platform for Smart Grids". I find the research topic interesting

 

I wonder if the proposed performance can be used not only in smart city scenarios but also in other scenarios where both data sharing access and user privacy protection are required, such as demand response systems based on aggregators. 

 

The authors do not provide some additional discussion comparing their results to those of other research (published in the literature)

 

I suggest using a table with the different proposals that the authors present and make a critical summary. 

 

Figure 2 is not referenced. 

The quality of the figures could be improved.

 

I recommend explaining the step-by-step procedure of use case scenario in a different way. All steps are using the same parameters and the table information seems to be redundant

 

TSOs and DSO are set with 1 and 5 values respectively. I recommend justifying this selection.

 

I would explain the results of figure 7 and 8 in terms of send rate.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper proposes a new exchange data platform for smart grids using blockchain. Adopts an artificial neural network technique to increase the platforms’ performance. The paper seems original, well-written, and the contributions are in accordance with those proposed. However, there are some unclear statements.

1 – In section 1, on the bullet points, the first bullet is not a key contribution. The third bullet point is very confusing and I can’t see how is that a contribution. Isn’t “Confidentiality and ownership of data by executing third-party computing within the data owner's environment” already assured with blockchain use?

2 – I suggest reorganising the introduction section with the following subsections: (i) background and motivation; (ii) literature review; (iii) main contributions; (iv) paper structure. Related work section content should be moved into the literature review subsection.

3 – In section 2, fourth paragraph, the authors state “…, it uncovered several critical problems.”. Which ones? Does the proposed work cover some of them?

4 – In section 4.1, the authors present Figure 2, which is not referred to during the paper.

5 – In section 5.1, also Figure 5 is not referred to during the paper.

6 – In section 5.1, the authors mention the segmentation of data before being fed into the network. There is an explanation for the values mentioned in the segmentation? Are those only test parameters for the model?

7 – In section 5.2, Table 1, there are two repeated columns labeled “Information Producer”. Why is that?

8 – In the conclusions sections, a few statements regarding the results from the proposed approach are made. Please be more detailed regarding the contributions made and with the achievements made in the case study. Perhaps introduce numerical results and detailed experimental findings.

Minor comments:

1 – In section 2, second paragraph, there is a mistake on “metres”.

2 – The spacing from the last paragraph of section 4.1 and section 5 is incorrect.

3 – There is no need for a subsection in section 4 if there is only one topic. Perhaps the system participants’ description could be separated from the architecture design.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments have been addressed.

Author Response

The reviewer has confirmed that all comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be now accepted

Author Response

The reviewer has confirmed that all comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is improved by the revisions. All my questions have been answered. I recommend answering the first question in the manuscript 

Author Response

See attached response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper has been significantly improved and the authors replied to all the reviewer’s comments. Yet, I have a comment on the introduction section. The division in subsections could be improved has provided in the first round of comments. Currently, literature review and motivation are mixed. I suggest as previously having: (i) background and motivation; (ii) literature review; (iii) main contributions; and (iv) paper structure.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf