A Secure Authentication Scheme with Local Differential Privacy in Edge Intelligence-Enabled VANET
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Comparison with related schemes needs more depth. What are the specific metrics compared? Provide clear experimental remarks in the abstract in terms of performance metrics.
2. The introduction lacks a clear problem statement of the research. Even the introduction contains repetitive content, avoid repetition for better clarity.
3. Numerous grammar errors present in the paper; the paper frequently shifts between passive and active voice; consistent use of tense is lacking, when presenting past research; careful proofreading is necessary.
4. Several references are outdated and do not reflect the latest advancements in edge intelligence. How does this work consider as advance the current state of knowledge?
5. The author mentions DY and CK network models but does not detail the specific security properties assured by each. How this model provides the security assurance? What are the attack vectors considered for insider attacks, and how does the proposed scheme mitigate them?
6. How does the proposed scheme outperform then other existing authentication scheme in terms of latency and computational overhead?
7. The equations are inadequately presented, for example; the equation 2 is not referenced and not properly explained.
8. There is no statistical analysis of the results. How do you ensure that the results are not due to random chance?
9. The description of the algorithm is verbose and lacks clarity. Provide more concise and clear pseudo-code or flowchart?
10. There is no discussion on the computational complexity of the proposed method. Provide insights on that.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNumerous grammar errors present in the paper; the paper frequently shifts between passive and active voice; consistent use of tense is lacking, when presenting past research; careful proofreading is necessary.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe following are the major comments to increase quality of paper "A Secure Authentication Scheme with Local Differential Privacy in Edge Intelligence-enabled VANET":
Title and Abstract
Improvement Title: Be More Precise and Specific If Possible Like: Secure and Private Authentication Scheme for Edge Intelligence-Enabled VANETs by Utilizing Local Differential Privacy.
Clear abstract: The clear and concise separation of the current schema, its major contributions, and results will be preferred. Right now it is VERY lengthy, so shorten it some while also letting the reader know what makes your work different and important.
Introduction
Motivation and Problem Statement: Clearly identify the well defined problems to be solved by your proposed scheme. The motivation must be harder to show that the proposed solution is essential in comparison with existing literature.
Summary of Contributions: Every introduction should finish with a very brief summary. This provides the reader an easy categorization of what was achieved overall by your paper as well.
Related Works
Extensive Literature Review: Enlarge the section of related works to incorporate more recent studies on edge intelligence and VANET security. This will better locate your work vis-a-vis the state-of-the-art.
Comparison Existing Works: Distinguish your scheme from existing works and specify the special characteristics as well as benefits.
Proposed Scheme
Depth of Pseudocode or Flowcharts - Proposed scheme showcasing the main algorithms (Example:- length(depth):0.5-1 pages) This would improve the transparency and ability to reproduce your work.
Explain Components: Write clear explanations of all your components and the fuzzy extractors, physically unclonable functions, etc. Include a flowchart - highlighting the system model and approach.
DETAILS ABOUT SECURITY -> more details on integration of security aspects such as [local differential privacy, biometric information] and advantages it provides. Weaknesses and counter measures. 12
Security Analysis
Formal Security Proofs Provide detailed proofs and theoretical considerations around the security claims of your approach. Any assumptions/theorems are stated clearly.
Innovativeness: What were some unique features of the proposal with respect to achieving end-to-end security, and will include a comparative analysis against existing schemes if relevant as well.
Performance Evaluation
Detailed Performance Metrics : Provide a detailed analysis of performance metrics like computational overhead, communication overhead and latency. Combine Theory and Experiments
The writer describes a simulation setup in detail, which includes hardware specifications such as software and network configurations. This will allow reproducibility and fact checking.
State-of-the-Art Comparison: Compare with the state of art and show how efficient and scalable that your solution is.
Writing and Presentation
Technical - Simplify and beter technical writings. Use short, easy-to-understand sentences and common language.
Figures and Tables: Make sure that all figures and tables are titled correctly, placed within the text at an appropriate location.CreateTable 1. Use descriptive captions to tell the reader why they should care about this data visualisation.
Grammar / Syntax: Go Through a Re-review for Grammar and Syntax to make more Readable
Future Work
Future Work: Extend the discussion of future work ideas with research directions and enhancements to the proposed system. Such as scalability tests, using in production or with other upcoming tech.
Answering these comments would significantly enrich the content, depth and quality of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageReal talk about the English Language Quality
It needs moderate editing in the English language: The paper is legible but highlights some grammatical corrections and semantics as well as contextual changes. Here are a few more specific recommendations:
Grammar & syntax: read over the paper for any instances of grammar or sentence awkwardness Subject-verb agreement and tense consistency.
Technical: Reduce complex sentences to make the paper friendly for a general audience, but there is no shame in using technical term.
Consistency - Keep terms and abbreviations consistent throughout the paper. For an instance if it is introduced as term then "edge intelligence-enabled VANET" should be used always.
Be Brief: Try to shorten sentences. Never reuse words and let every sentence add some additional effect to the overall content.
Proofreading: After proofreaidng by a native English speaker or professional editor if is to be done, it would help in finding and treating persisited lingual problems.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the author for revised the paper based on the previous feedback. However, the paper still requires careful revision to consider for the publication.
1. The phrase "ensure a secure and efficient authentication using fuzzy extractor, elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), and physical unclonable function (PUF) technology" is repetitive. Can this be streamlined?
2. The technical term "fuzzy extractors" is used without explanation. Can you provide a brief overview or reference?
3. Many sentences are missing commas and numerous grammatical errors leading to confusion. Revise the manuscript for better readability.
4. The manuscript contains numerous mathematical expressions. To avoid confusion for researchers who may not be familiar with the concepts, please present the equations in a more understandable way. Ensure the explanations are clear and accessible, making it easier for all researchers to follow the concepts.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMany sentences are missing commas and numerous grammatical errors leading to confusion. Needs to revise the manuscript for better readability.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments
Comments on the Quality of English Languageok
Author Response
Thank you very much.
