All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewers' comments have been addressed. The paper can be accepted. Congratulations.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel S. Katz, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
From the response letter, I think the paper has been well revised according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
From the response letter, I think the paper has been well revised according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
From the response letter, I think the paper has been well revised according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
From the response letter, I think the paper has been well revised according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
no comments
no comment
no comment
no comment
We have received two reports on this paper. The reviewers have some concerns that need to be addressed before further processing. Please provide a detailed response letter. Thanks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This manuscript proposes a new hybrid k-nearest neighbour and random forest (HKNNRF) model and constructs a block cipher algorithm identification scheme based on it. We use NIST randomness test methods to extract ciphertext features in the ciphertext-only scenario. The HKNNRF model is used to construct an identification classifier to carry out binary classification and multi-classification experiments on the block cipher algorithms. Moreover, they should emphasize that the multi-classification investigation is to classify five different block cipher algorithms. Experiments show that when the ciphertext size and other experimental conditions are the same, compared with the scheme based on the single-layer classifier model, the HKNNRF model has a higher classification accuracy and stability. Adequate revisions to the following points should be undertaken to justify the recommendation for publication.
• This paper has more than spelling and grammatical errors. Please fix all of them. And some of the sentences are not understood.
• The abstract section is long. Please rewrite an abstract section, justify an obtained result and contribution, improve a proposed method, etc.
• Please write your contribution to this paper in the Introduction section.
• The authors should clearly state the limitations of the proposed method in other applications.
• Please draw a flowchart of the proposed method.
• Please use a new algorithm for comparisons, such as the Farmland fertility algorithm, African Vultures Optimization Algorithm, and Artificial Gorilla Troops Optimizer.
• Please write the paper structure in the end paragraph of the Introduction section.
• Please change the title of the end section (Conclusion) to (Conclusion and Future Works) and write some future work on your proposed method.
• All figures have low quality, and please improve all of them.
• Related work is missed; the authors used some new and SCI or Scopus indexed papers in this section.
Good luck
...
...
...
(i)There are some places in the paper, where the English is poor and hence the reader is unable to comprehend what the authors intend to say.
eg: line numbers-264, 265, 298(This thesis uses),. Also the line "Moreover, what we should emphasize is that the multi-classification experiment is to classify five different block cipher algorithms in our paper." should be re-written as it lacks clarity. The abstract to be re-written clearly in Professional English.
(ii) Sufficient Literature and back ground work has been provided.
(iii) Adequate raw data shared and the paper structure is good.
Adequate information is given paper about the investigation performed.
All the data and code has been provided. However in the Discussion section, the comparison of the proposed method with an existing method from literature has to be done to understand how this work is better than previous works.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.