Hyperledger for IoT: A Review of Reconstruction Diagrams Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript revises the latest progress of Hyperledger application in IoT by using reconstruction diagrams. The paper is interesting, well organized and an adequate list of references is given. My concern has to do with the topic of the manuscript, which is marginally relevant to "Electronics".

Apart from the topic, my overall impression is that the paper can be published after the following (minor) improvements:

The energy requirements concerning this topic are missing completely from the manuscript and the authors should include them in the revised version.

Although the list of references is rather sufficient, certain (extensive) parts of the manuscript lack citations at all. I believe that, in Sections 1 and 2, the authors should refer to specific pertinent references (either new or already cited elsewhere in the manuscript). The whole Introduction, as well as Section 2, refer practically to no previous works. Especially subsections 2.1-2.6 should at least contain 2-3 citations each.

The characters in the diagrams are too small, thus incomprehensible at places.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

First of all, we would like to thank you for your review. This paper carefully follows the comments of reviewer 1, and the following changes have been made to the article.

Point 1: The energy requirements concerning this topic are missing completely from the manuscript and the authors should include them in the revised version.

 

Response 1: This paper re-examines the description of the research motivation and confirms that it is adequate to review the motivation of the research on Hyperledger in the Internet of Things under the reconstruction diagram perspective.

 

Point 2: Although the list of references is rather sufficient, certain (extensive) parts of the manuscript lack citations at all. I believe that, in Sections 1 and 2, the authors should refer to specific pertinent references (either new or already cited elsewhere in the manuscript). The whole Introduction, as well as Section 2, refer practically to no previous works. Especially subsections 2.1-2.6 should at least contain 2-3 citations each.

 

Response 2: Some citations have been added in sections 1 and 2 to improve the persuasiveness of the paper, especially in sections 2.1-2.6. In the first section this paper adds 3 references such as references 2, 3, and 4. In the second section this paper adds 1-3 references in sections 2.1-2.6 depending on the enabling technologies. For example, references 7, 8, and 9 are added in section 2.2. In addition, some descriptions are modified to enhance the expertise of the description of the enabling techniques.

 

Point 3: The characters in the diagrams are too small, thus incomprehensible at places.

 

Response 3: In this paper, the font size and formatting of the 51 reconstructions diagrams (all diagrams) have been completely revised to improve clarity. The font size of the reconstructed diagrams was increased and the format of all diagrams was converted to tif to ensure better clarity.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is just merely explored and reported on  the latest related literature of Hy-17 perledger in IoT from Web of Science, Wordlib and EBSCO databases.

 

We are afraid none of experimentals issues that reported on the paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

First of all, we would like to thank you for your review. This paper carefully follows the comments of reviewer 2, and the following changes have been made to the article.

Point 1: We are afraid none of experimentals issues that reported on the paper.

 

Response 1: In this paper, we added comparison tables, such as Table 1. One of the comparison metrics in the table is the performance evaluation. In order to reflect the specific experimental report analysis and experimental differences, this paper presents the important experimental results of all parts of the literature in the form of comparison tables. This enables the reader to have an intuitive understanding of the experimental results of each scenario.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author needs to incorporate the following suggestion before publishing the manuscript.

1.            The manuscript is not well-formatted. It is suggested to add the flow of the manuscript and also highlight your contribution (in crip lines) in Introduction Section. The authors have also given their contact details as there are five authors and emails are only 4 present.

2.            Improve the quality of all figures with their captions and also arrange the table accordingly. It is also suggested to arrange the equations uniformly. The text is not in a readable format.

3.            It is suggested to describe the parameters and presents the results for the accuracy of various techniques from the literature in a table.

4.            Explain and also mention the data set which is used for the various proposed methodology in the literature.

5.            Try to improve the overall language of the paper which must be easy for a reviewer to understand.
Figures numbering can be numerical purely rather than alphanumeric. It's hard to follow them sometimes. 

Overall paper is based on a detailed study of Hyperledger for IoT and is well written. The literature can be improved and authors can follow these publications too for the understanding of basic concepts of blockchain.

Sustainable Smart Cities: Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain, A blockchain framework for securing connected and autonomous vehicles, A hybrid framework for multimedia data processing in IoT-healthcare using blockchain technology, Prediction of the price of Ethereum blockchain cryptocurrency in an industrial finance system, A secure communicating things network framework for industrial IoT using blockchain technology, Blockchain Based Smart Contracts for Internet of Medical Things in e-Healthcare

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

First of all, we would like to thank you for your review. This paper carefully follows the comments of reviewer 3, and the following changes have been made to the article.

Point 1: The manuscript is not well-formatted. It is suggested to add the flow of the manuscript and also highlight your contribution (in crip lines) in Introduction Section. The authors have also given their contact details as there are five authors and emails are only 4 present.

 

Response 1: In this paper, the flow of the manuscript is added at the end of the first section. For example, "The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents an overview of Hy-perledger and its enabling technologies. .... ". The email of the fifth author has been added below the title of the paper. In addition, the main contribution section has been re-examined to confirm that the main contribution is concise and comprehensive, and we suggest that the description of the main contribution be retained.

 

Point 2:  Improve the quality of all figures with their captions and also arrange the table accordingly. It is also suggested to arrange the equations uniformly. The text is not in a readable format.

 

Response 2: In this paper, the font size and formatting of the 51 reconstructions diagrams (all diagrams) have been completely revised to improve clarity. The font size of the reconstructed diagrams was increased and the format of all diagrams was converted to tif to ensure better clarity. Since the analysis method in this paper is a reconstruction diagram method, we propose to keep the title of the diagram, e.g., "Reconstruction diagram of reference 41", in order to show more direct results.

 

Point 3:  It is suggested to describe the parameters and presents the results for the accuracy of various techniques from the literature in a table.

 

Response 3: This paper adds comparison tables, such as Table 1, etc. This paper re-examines all the schemes and shows the differences between the schemes in six parameters, including year, consensus algorithm, incentive mechanism, application domain, issued addressed and performance evaluation.

 

Point 4:  Explain and also mention the data set which is used for the various proposed methodology in the literature.

 

Response 4: Since in Hyperledger-based IoT applications, information such as dataset size, type, etc. can be reflected in the experimental results. Therefore, in this paper, we focus on comparing the performance evaluation in the comparison table to show the relevant information of the dataset.

 

Point 5:   Try to improve the overall language of the paper which must be easy for a reviewer to understand.Figures numbering can be numerical purely rather than alphanumeric. It's hard to follow them sometimes. 

 

Response 5: This paper rechecked the English expressions and made some changes in the article. In addition, this paper followed the reviewer's comments and revised all reconstructed figure numbers uniformly to numbers. Go to ensure that editors, reviewers and readers can quickly follow the ideas of the article.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The authors should explore on the open opprtunieties and challanges on the "blockchain with the Internet of Things (IoT)"

 

2. The auhtors need to explored more on how to get more on  10 attention. Blockchain mainly solved the problem of secure storage and trusted transactions.

 

3. You need to explore more why you only get   11 convergence.

 

4. How you implement and adopt  two emerging technologies enhanced the security of smart services on your paper. Add them with detail.

 

5. Please also explore more on the challenges 12 technical barriers to deploy practical IoT systems.

 

6.  How and what strategies to  promote the 13 popularity and application of blockchain in the IoT, Hyperledger became the ideal technology to 14 overcome these obstacles.

 

7. You need to explored more on the implementatiom of  IoT deep integration with Hyperledger to achieve high security.

 

8. Please provide in detail with the indexing and scopes of technology convergence process, this study proposed a reconstruction diagrams analysis method. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (Round 2)

 

Point 1: The authors should explore on the open opprtunieties and challanges on the "blockchain with the Internet of Things (IoT)".

 

Response 1:. This paper adds related content in Section 1 and Section 5. Since the topic of this paper is to discuss the exploration of Hyperledger applications in IoT, a brief overview of the opportunities and challenges of blockchain and IoT is presented. For example, "Based on the current stage of technology development, these barriers to implementation focus on the lack of privacy protection , inefficient transactions, high latency, and lack of flexibility." This paper summarizes in detail the open challenges and potential opportunities for the exploration of superledgers in the IoT in Section 5.

 

Point 2:  The auhtors need to explored more on how to get more on  10 attention. Blockchain mainly solved the problem of secure storage and trusted transactions.

 

Response 2: This article explains your doubts. The authors of this article have compiled a large body of literature and other types of information, and analyzed the technical features, innovative designs, and developments of superledgers to conclude that "blockchain primarily solves the problem of secure storage and trusted transactions".

 

Point 3: You need to explore more why you only get   11 convergence.

Response 3: In this paper, we have added content to explain why we got 8 convergence points. First, the paper summarizes a total of 8 convergence points. Secondly, all the authors of this paper have summarized 8 convergence points based on their study of the technical features or advantages of the enabling technologies and the scenarios discussed in the paper. Therefore, a brief description has been added to this paper. For example, "This paper summarizes the possible integration points of Hyperledger and IoT based on the study of Hyperledger-enabling technologies."

 

Point 4 How you implement and adopt  two emerging technologies enhanced the security of smart services on your paper. Add them with detail.

 Response 4: This paper will explain your doubts. First, this paper discusses how the integration of two emerging technologies specifically enhances the security of smart services through a combination of reconstruction diagrams and textual descriptions in 4.1. One of the main objectives of the reconstruction diagram analysis method is to show the specific integration approach or process in the most intuitive way for editors, reviewers and readers. In order to show the convergence process more clearly, each step is marked in the reconstruction diagram.

 

Point 5: Please also explore more on the challenges 12 technical barriers to deploy practical IoT systems.

 Response 5: Related content has been added to this paper. In Section 5 this paper discusses the technical barriers and other impediments to the practical deployment of Hyperledger and IoT applications.

Point 6: How and what strategies to  promote the 13 popularity and application of blockchain in the IoT, Hyperledger became the ideal technology to 14 overcome these obstacles.

 Response 6: This article will explain your doubts. First, in the first section this paper discusses in detail why Hyperledger is the ideal technology to address the barriers, i.e., it enables a whole new level of empowerment in four aspects. Secondly, this paper discusses in detail below the ways or strategies through which Hyperledger can facilitate its application in the Internet of Things through a combination of reconstruction diagrams and textual descriptions. In each of the subsections of Section 4, this paper shows the specific strategies or integration approaches.

 

Point 7: You need to explored more on the implementatiom of  IoT deep integration with Hyperledger to achieve high security.

 Response 7: This paper has been reviewed and researched again by all authors, and some parts of the abstract have been revised, such as "In recent years, the mainstream application fields of IoT have been trying to carry out integration with Hyperledger..." . In addition, the paper explains how to improve security through Hyperledger in the context of the reconstruction diagram in 4.1. One of the advantages of reconstruction diagrams as an analytical approach is that they provide a more detailed view of the integration process without requiring a lot of textual representation.

 

Point 8: Please provide in detail with the indexing and scopes of technology convergence process, this study proposed a reconstruction diagrams analysis method.

Response 8: In this paper, we explain your doubts. Firstly, the main contribution of this paper in Section 1 briefly explains the index and scope of this paper. Secondly, in subsections 4.1-4.9, the first paragraph of this paper details the scope of what is being explored in the field. In addition, since one of the innovations of this paper is to propose a synthesis analysis method for reconstruction diagrams, a detailed description of this method is also presented in the first section.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

We agree with the revision from the authors.

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.