Medical Data Storage Model Based on an Alliance Chain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of my points that need to be fixed in this revision
-try to make the paragraphs in the introduction section more comprehensive, it is very sort
-add a summary for the related works in a paragraph or a table to show for the reader what is the difference between your work and other published works in the literature.
-A native speaker should check the language.
-Add numbering to all main sections
-make your contributions clearer
-check the mathematical notations
-As, the work proceeds in a mathematical perspective derivations are not necessary the meaningful contribution with its research findings has to be stated well.
- Please use the complete form of abbreviations in the abstract.
- Your ideas in the introduction section need to be more comprehensive.
- The last paragraph before the end of section one should contain at least the follows The proposed methods clearly what is the main differences between the proposed algorithm and the others How the contributions were done. The problem that has been solved in this research. The datasets that have been used in the research experiments. The general results that you have been got.
-The novelty of the method is limited. The presentation (clarity/structure) is average and the description for the method is not very easy to understand.
- Check the mathematical notation especially for the proposed method.
- Add a new figure to show the general procedures of the proposed method
- I think the subject and object of this paper is very ambiguous in the introduction even though authors well described the previous work, I hope the author should consider why this paper is necessary to the read.
- A more detailed review of the literature is expected. Also, it is required that the previous solutions to this problem be addressed. Then, the advantages (and disadvantages?) of the proposed method should be discussed.
-try to follow the journal template
Author Response
1. The introductory section has been carefully divided into paragraphs
2. Have listed comparative references in the table
3. Grammatical errors have been checked
4. Some paragraphs have been renumbered
5. Some comparative contributions have been marked in red
6. Mathematical symbols have been rechecked and updated
7. Some mathematical formulae have been subsequently described with their meaning in red font
8. The full abbreviated form (IPFS) has been used in the abstract
9. The explanation of the difference between the proposed algorithm and other algorithms has been contributed in red font before the end of the first section
10. Some mathematical symbols as well as pseudo-code symbols have been checked and corrected
11. Added the general flow chart Figure 2 and explain its meaning specifically
12. Further comparison of communication complexity
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is titled – “Medical data storage model based on alliance chain”. It relates to the scope of the special issue to which it has been submitted. The methodology is supported by results and relevant discussions which upholds the novelty of the work. But the quality of presentation of certain parts of the paper needs improvement. It is suggested that the authors make the necessary changes/updates to the paper as per the following comments:
1. Missing references: Several fact-based sentences throughout the paper are missing supporting references. For instance – this sentence: “The traditional health care data models all have monopoly and privacy problems” should have a supporting reference as it is unclear which data models are being referred to here.
2. The authors state – “In recent years, with the development of technologies such as big data and cloud computing…..” While this is true, but this statement should be elaborated. The references cited with this statement are also not recent ones. For instance [3] was published 4 years ago. Briefly state some of the emerging advances in these fields such as intelligent healthcare (suggested citation: https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc5030042), smart transportation (suggested citation https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145111), etc. in this context.
3. The literature review is brief and written like a conference paper. Please expand this section.
4. The author state – “The storage model in this paper has good scalability and reliability”. A proper explanation should be provided to support stating the model is scalable as well as reliable.
5. The paper compares the communication complexity under different numbers of network nodes. This is good. However, the complexity is not compared with similar works in this field.
6. References: Several references are incomplete. For instance, in [1-3], the locations of the conferences are not mentioned. [14] and [15] are not in MDPI reference format.
Author Response
1. Fact-based sentences have added references. For example, literature [17], [19], etc..
2. References [2],[3] has been revised using your suggestions from the reviewer.
3. The references review has been expanded with descriptions, some of which are marked in red font.
4."The storage model in this paper has good scalability and reliability "additional description in red font section in section 3.1.1
5. The paper compares other recent related improved algorithms SG-PBFT, for example, Figure 6.
6. References: update the citation of relevant papers within the last three years and revise the format.
7. I have partially revised the content according to your valuable comments from the reviewers and marked it in red font to facilitate your review, thank you！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear, authors.
The manuscript is well written and designed.
In the current version, this manuscript can be accepted. Thanks a lot.
Author Response
1. Thank you very much for your comments, reviewers. Please see the attachment for some of the corrections and wish you all the best.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the paper as per most of my comments and feedback. I do not have any additional comments at this point. I recommend the publication of the paper in its current form.
