Security, Privacy, and Reliability in Digital Healthcare Systems Using Blockchain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of my previous round reviews are addressed, but I still have the following concerns:

 

There are many typos, for example:

-`...on ring signature. our proposed...'

-`smartcontarct'

Hence thorough proofread requires by highlighting the changes in different color in the revised version. 
Also if needed, pls fine-tune some part of the text. 

Some of the figures are clear, whereas few of them are blurred in its 100% zoom.

Authors need to deal with these two comments very cautiously.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: electronics-1310889, ‘Security, Privacy and Reliability in Digital Healthcare System using Blockchain’.

Thank you for your feedback on our paper which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and presentation of the paper. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in this revised version. We explain below how the comments of each reviewer have been carefully addressed. We have highlighted the changes we have made in the revised manuscript in red color. We sincerely hope you and the reviewers will be satisfied with all the revisions we have made.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer# 1 (Comments and Response)

Most of my previous round reviews are addressed, but I still have the following concerns:

Comment#1: There are many typos, for example:-`...on ring signature. our proposed...' `smartcontarct' Hence thorough proofread requires by highlighting the changes in different color in the revised version.  Also, if needed, pls fine-tune some part of the text. 

Response #1: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which have greatly improved our paper. According to your suggestions, we have revised our manuscript for typos and the mentioned points. We have also revised the text where it was appropriate, and we have fine-tuned it. The changes are highlighted in red throughout the manuscript. For this purpose, we have corrected spellings, removed unnecessary spaces, revised the sentences and paragraphs where it was required.

Comment#2: Some of the figures are clear, whereas a few of them are blurred in its 100% zoom.

Authors need to deal with these two comments very cautiously.

Response# 2: Thank you for your meticulous comment and suggestion regarding the improvement of the figures. Following your suggestion, we have revised the blurred figures. We have redrawn figures 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19 with good resolution. The blurring effect was removed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please show the references[?][?] of Medrec, Medblock, and Medchain in Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 20.

2. Please show the reasons that Medrec is smaller than the proposed method with Rounds (6300~7200) in Figure 13.

3. Please show the reasons that Medrec is bigger than the proposed method with Rounds (6300~7200) in Figure 14.

4. Figure 16 shows the colors to be not easy to see.

     (1) like Medchain colors.

      (2) What is Red line?

Please show the better Figure 16.

5. Please show the equation of the Power(Transactions) in Figure 16.

6. Please show the equation of the No. of dead nodes(Transactions) in Figure 17.

7. Please show the equation of Time Cost(Concurrent Writes) in Figure 18.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: electronics-1310889, ‘Security, Privacy and Reliability in Digital Healthcare System using Blockchain’.

Thank you for your feedback on our paper which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and presentation of the paper. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in this revised version. We explain below how the comments of each reviewer have been carefully addressed. We have highlighted the changes we have made in the revised manuscript in red color. We sincerely hope you and the reviewers will be satisfied with all the revisions we have made.

Please find the attached Microsoft word file for a point-by-point response to your valuable comments and suggestions. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Below some of the comments yet to be addressed,

1. In figure 19, authors have claimed that

``From Fig.19 its very clear that our proposed framework
can provide efficient throughput up-to 70-domain respectively. The limitations of our
proposed framework is upto 70-domain respectively.''

-first of all, its-->it's, Fig.19-->figure 19 etc.

-Can author pls reproduce figure 19 considering more than `70-domain' to justify the terms `limitations'
`efficient throughput' up-to 70-domain?

Thorough english proofread requires! use different color to highlighting the changes, so that I can check whether the modification
has done in a correct manner or not!
 

2. Reasoning behind the response of figure 13 is missing?

3. Either remove figs. 10-12 or replace them by comparing with other schemes?

4. The text size of X-axis and Y-axis in figs. 16 and 17 mismatches with other figures.

5. Use equation editor for all the equations. Fol example: (16) not in use

6. Use of dots in (15), (19) and (20) are not clear to me? are they dot products of the vectors?

7. They are few equations only, but then also many concerns such as 

-many undefined parameters
-each equation needs to be properly ended up with `,' and `.' respectively

A table is recommended to define all the used notations and symbols.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: electronics-1310889, ‘Security, Privacy and Reliability in Digital Healthcare System using Blockchain’.

Thank you for your feedback on our paper which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and presentation of the paper. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in this revised version. We explain below how the comments of each reviewer have been carefully addressed. We have highlighted the changes we have made in the revised manuscript in red color. We sincerely hope you and the reviewers will be satisfied with all the revisions we have made. Please see the attached file i.e. our response letter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The author's manuscript talked about QC-LDPC codes and chi-square channels.

The references [1] and [2] talked about QC-LDPC codes and chi-square channels.

Why is difference between the author manuscript and reference paper [1]-[2]?

 

[1] Haddadi, Sadjad, Mahmoud Farhang, and Mostafa Derakhtian, "Generalized weighted bit-flipping LDPC decoding for asymmetric optical channels," Physical Communication, no. 47, pp. 101369, 2021.

[2] Baldi, Marco, et al., "Security gap analysis of some LDPC coded transmission schemes over the flat and fast fading Gaussian wire-tap channels," EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, no.1, pp. 1-12, 2015.

 

2. Please show the figures of the other papers[1][2] in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 6.

[1] Haddadi, Sadjad, Mahmoud Farhang, and Mostafa Derakhtian, "Generalized weighted bit-flipping LDPC decoding for asymmetric optical channels," Physical Communication, no. 47, pp. 101369, 2021.

[2] Baldi, Marco, et al., "Security gap analysis of some LDPC coded transmission schemes over the flat and fast fading Gaussian wire-tap channels," EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, no.1, pp. 1-12, 2015.

 

3. Please show the equation of BER(dispersion) in  Fig. 5.

 

4. Please show the equation of BER(amplifier Span) in Fig. 7.

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: electronics-1310889, ‘Security, Privacy and Reliability in Digital Healthcare System using Blockchain’.

Thank you for your feedback on our paper which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and presentation of the paper. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in this revised version. We explain below how the comments of each reviewer have been carefully addressed. We have highlighted the changes we have made in the revised manuscript in red color. We sincerely hope you and the reviewers will be satisfied with all the revisions we have made. We have already provided you the response file.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of my comments from previous round reviews have addressed, but few still to be fixed.

6. Use of dots in (15), (19) and (20) are not clear to me? are they dot products of the vectors?

7. They are few equations only, but then also many concerns such as 

-many undefined parameters
-each equation needs to be properly ended up with `,' and `.' respectively

A table is recommended to define all the used notations and symbols.

 

 

 

Few view comment in this round of review,

-use of star in (17) is not clear too me!
-OMG, What does `(1+)' mean in (19)? I think typo!
-The blurriness of Figure 17 needs improvement.
-Figure 20 consists of 4 figures. As small space have been considered by adjusting figure size that's why may be 
legend is overlapping with plots. Pls consider large figure size as like other figures by reproducing them again 
keeping in mind that there should not be overlapping of legend with plots,
as there is no as such page limitation.

 

1. `Can author pls reproduce figure 19 considering more than `70-domain?': I have gone through your response in the response letter,
but this reviewer is curious to see figure 19 considering more than `70-domain?'

Author Response

Manuscript ID: electronics-1310889, ‘Security, Privacy and Reliability in Digital Healthcare System using Blockchain’.

 

Thank you for your feedback on our paper which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and presentation of the paper. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in this revised version. We explain below how the comments of each reviewer have been carefully addressed. We have highlighted the changes we have made in the revised manuscript in red color. We sincerely hope you and the reviewers will be satisfied with all the revisions we have made. Please see the attached response letter. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Comment is on the attached file "Comment.pdf".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: electronics-1310889, ‘Security, Privacy and Reliability in Digital Healthcare System using Blockchain’.

 

Thank you for your feedback on our paper which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and presentation of the paper. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in this revised version. We explain below how the comments of each reviewer have been carefully addressed. We have highlighted the changes we have made in the revised manuscript in red color. We sincerely hope you and the reviewers will be satisfied with all the revisions we have made. Please see the attached file of our response to the valuable comments and suggestions. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more comments. The present form of the paper is now ready for acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The author's manuscript can publish the Electronics.