Back to all available

A railway monitoring data sharing incentive scheme based on reputation value and smart contracts

human-computer-interaction
optimization-theory-and-computation
scientific-computing-and-simulation
internet-of-things
blockchain

Abstract

The current data sharing incentive scheme based on evolutionary game theory generally adopts a two-party evolutionary game without reward and punishment management for member nodes and lacks a reputation mechanism. A three-party dynamic incentive mechanism for railroad disaster prevention and monitoring data sharing based on reputation value is established, and an evolutionary game stabilization strategy analysis is carried out based on the credibility mechanism and gain matrix. A tripartite dynamic incentive mechanism for railroad disaster prevention data based on evolutionary game theory is proposed. Finally, the scheme proposed in this paper is encapsulated into a smart contract for invocation by all parties, which finally realizes a high data sharing user participation rate within the whole system. Simulation experiments show that the scheme can dynamically adjust the parameters in the data sharing process, thus changing the evolutionary direction of the data sharing process and ensuring that the interests of all parties are maximized.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].