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 review paper is accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sebastian Ventura, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
Sound
Sound
Sound
Ok, Accept
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewers comments.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewers comments.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewers comments.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I think that the authors have very conscientiously and precisely responded to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers and thereby improved the quality of this important review paper, which can represent a significant starting point for future research in this area.
The paper is interesting and deals with important tasks. Review papers are not often written, but good review papers can be useful for the wider community.
The paper has a good structure with all the necessary elements. The authors have clearly shown problem formulation.
This part of the paper is well presented with enough Tables and Figures.
The paper falls within the scope of the journal PeerJ computer science. I must note that I am not be reviewer of this manuscript in the first round. Now in the second round I have assessed the paper in the whole and replies to other reviewers.
My decision is that paper can be accepted and forward to production. The authors well elaborated problem and made really good review paper. Number of elaborated studies is enough and number of total references is 192 which is proof of time and effort needed for writing such study.
The abstract is well written, while keywords are selected in the proper way.
Generally the paper has potential and can be cited in the future, especially because research interest of this study is very popular.
The review process is finished. The authors should revise the manuscript accordingly, as well as provide point-to-point responses to reviewers' concerns.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
the introduction needs more additions, the introduction must be clearly visible and not only present the problem but provide a debate as to why this review study is needed
sound
sound
this review is very good and covers all aspects of the review. the results obtained also succeeded in answering the research questions given. but in the title section it is better to make a systematic review of literature rather than writing it as a comprehensive review
This paper represents a review article on the credit card cyber fraud detection. The review focuses specifically on exploring Machine Learning / Deep Learning approaches. By exploring six most well-known databases, the authors identified 181 research articles, published in three years (2019, 2020, and 2021).
The article is well written and use clear, unambiguous, and technically correct text.
The structure of the article is in accordance with a standard format for review papers: Introduction, Survey methodology, Research questions, Result and analysis, Trend of research, Gap analysis and the future direction, Limitation of the review, and Conclusions.
Figures are relevant to the content of the article, appropriately described and labelled.
The suggestion for the authors:
In the text it is stated in several places: “Our review selected papers that were published within the last three years, namely 2019, 2020, and 2021”. If accepted, the article will probably be published in 2023, which means that the mentioned years are not “last”. This issue can be solved by adding the research on papers from 2022; however, if this would be too demanding for the authors to solve in a reasonable time, then the word “last” should be removed from the text.
Research questions are well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is explained how the research fills an identified knowledge gap. The research is conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.
The obtained results are of interest to the general and academic audience. The conclusions are appropriately stated and connected to the original investigated questions.
The title of the paper is in correspondence with its content.
Also, the summary and conclusion correspond to the essence of the work.
The acronyms are consistently explained when first used in the text.
The use of terminology is correct and it complies with applicable standards.
I think that the labels of Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 name should be different (without shows) and also Table 7 is wrongly referenced twice in the text (Appendix C, not B). Also, the title of Figure 5 is wrong ("Number of articales")
The review paper comprehensively covers the latest research (2019-2021). Can the authors briefly explain the motive for singling out this period or statistically present the number of works in the past ten years in the Introductory part?
The authors clearly explained the methodology and method of literature selection and presented it clearly in the text, graphically, and tabularly.
Several forms of cyber fraud are given in the Introduction: actual credit card theft, theft of confidential credit card information, and credit card information being entered without the cardholder's permission during an online transaction. Are statistical data available to the authors on the share of these different forms of fraud?
In the paper, the authors clearly identified the achieved goal of the research and, according to the defined research questions, provided guidelines for further work in this area
The consistency of the obtained results and comparability indicate the global importance of the research, with special reference to the number of research papers by country (Figure 5).
No comment
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.