Information Sharing in Land Registration Using Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

my concerns are addressed, thanks for revising this paper! This looks good to me

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

All images are of poor quality, especially 7 and 8.

Figure 8 does not have a well marked role of the owner. The arrows are poorly placed and the icons are of different sizes. Also the lines overlap.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work addresses blockchain-based land registration. 
My major concern is the novelty of the work: several other research work exist, which are about blockchain-based land registration. The authors must thoroughly clarify the novelty of the current work with respect to the State of the Art. 


Other comments are the following: 

- the authors mention that a drawback of existing systems is accessibility, and that blockchain technology enables that data is accessible anywhere. However, they exploit a private blockchain, so it seems that land registration data cannot be accessed by end users.

- the authors must explain Figure 8. 

- the authors must explain the values reported at lines 483-487. E.g., is this a new registration or an existing land? Why area = 300?

- they should clarify that the code reported is not a smart contract code, just a description. Furthermore, the instruction land.area=300 is not clear (is this value assigned to all registrations?). The authors should also clarify what type of data is stored in the smart contract.

- the authors should verify that all the acronym are explained (e.g., UPA, LRA, etc.). They also should explain what A3 ornic is. The first time they mention smart contracts, they should explain what a smart contract is. 

- in Figure 9, "channelLands" is reported, whereas the text mentions Channel12.

- the authors should verify that all flow charts contains Y/N at the exit of condition verification.

The English language is fine. Some check could be performed, e.g., to verify that all the acronyms are defined, or that platforms are always capitalized (e.g., at line 340, "hyperledger Fabric").

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper introduces a new system that uses the permissioned Hyperledger Fabric platform to bring the existing land registration system up to date. One positive aspect worth noting is the detailed design of the proposed system, which gives a thorough view of how it works. However, there are a few areas that need attention.

A significant concern is that the paper seems to focus more on describing a specific system design rather than contributing fresh research to the broader field. To address this, it's suggested to tweak the introduction and highlight the contributions made to the field.

Other issues include the term "ICT" being thrown in without explaining it first, which might confuse readers. Additionally, Figure 1 is mentioned without a detailed explanation in the text, leaving readers looking for more context. In Section 3, there's a reference to unpublished papers, raising concerns about their credibility and proper citation.

The visuals, like figures, are not very clear, and they don't scale well, which affects how easily readers can understand the information. Section 4 seems too focused on Sudan land trading, making it less applicable to a broader range of situations or other countries.

The paper gives off more of a system design case study vibe rather than delving deeply into the subject. To improve this, it's recommended to explore and discuss technical challenges and system goals more extensively.

A key missing component is an evaluation section, crucial for assessing how effective the proposed system is. Also, the privacy measures, especially the use of private channels, need a clearer explanation and better structuring for easier understanding.

Lastly, there's a significant oversight in not addressing deployment challenges, like government involvement and data input procedures. Providing insights into step-by-step procedures for real-world implementation would be helpful for readers wanting a practical understanding of the proposed system's feasibility.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf