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.
Congratulations to the authors on acceptance. Thanks for your contribution.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper titled "An anti-collusion attack defense method for physical layer key generation scheme based on transmission delay", is a novel writing as so far there are articles on anti-collusion attack defense method exist but for anti-collusion attack defense method for physical layer key generation scheme based on transmission delay is rare. The use of the influence of the number of conspiring malicious nodes on the exposure probability of the key generated by this scheme through the probability model is very impressive. The paper is clearly written in a good style and includes figures and tables wherever necessary.
The objective and motivation for the research has been very well stated in the introduction part. The authors clarified the following issue raised by reviewer in first review .
1. Author divide the anti-collusion attack defense strategy into two main objectives(In section SOLUTIONS ON THE SECURITY PROBLEM OF HUANG ET AL.’S SCHEME, These objective need more clarification -
Use of probabilistic models in the scenarios of “Careless Defender” and “Cautious Defender” respectively to prove the effectiveness of the defense method is quite satisfactory. The authors have clearly acknowledged and identified the contributions of their research against previous researchers' work.
Validity of findings:
The authors adequately evaluated their work, and all claims are clearly articulated and supported by empirical experiments.
The overall work is good, novel and timely.
The authors improved the article with consideration of the comments.
No comment
No comment
Authors are advised to consider the comments of all reviewers carefully and consider proofreading carefully.
[# 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) #]
[# 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 article have sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature review is discussed properly.
Author should revise his Abstract and add highlight his contribution.
The submission has defined proper research question with appropriate purpose.
The knowledge gap has been investigated, identified, and statements are clear for reader.
However, I suggest author to extend the Introduction part and add the Literature Review heading separately to add the research gap.
The data on which the conclusions are based is provide properly.
Revise the paper flow and highlight your contribution in Abstract.
The paper titled "An anti-collusion attack defense method for physical layer key generation scheme based on transmission delay", is a novel writing as so far there are articles on anti-collusion attack defense method exist but for anti-collusion attack defense method for physical layer key generation scheme based on transmission delay is rare. The use of the influence of the number of conspiring malicious nodes on the exposure probability of the key generated by this scheme through the probability model is very impressive. The paper is clearly written in a good style and includes figures and tables wherever necessary.
The objective and motivation for the research has been very well stated in the introduction part. But needs clarification on the following:
1. Author divide the anti-collusion attack defense strategy into two main objectives(In section SOLUTIONS ON THE SECURITY PROBLEM OF HUANG ET AL.’S SCHEME, These objective need more clarification
Use of probabilistic models in the scenarios of “Careless Defender” and “Cautious Defender” respectively to prove the effectiveness of the defense method is quite satisfactory. The authors have clearly acknowledged and identified the contributions of their research against previous researchers' work..
The authors adequately evaluated their work, and all claims are clearly articulated and supported by empirical experiments
However, addressing the above comments would improve the quality of the paper. The overall work is good, novel and timely.
The article aims fill the gap at the Hung et al.’s scheme. The authors stated that they find a security problem of collusion attack. It is better to start the abstract (line#12) by identifying the research gap (research problem) instead of identifying the reference.
At (line#57), Huang et al.’s scheme is the main reference of the research gap at the article, why this reference is selected among others? Do you think it is the main and the only reference at this domain? At (line#66), the author proposed an anti-collusion attach defense method, what is the unique at the proposed method here? Since it has been also discussed by previous studies.
At (line#352), required to update the introduction to reflect the goals of the current phase, and also required to numbering the sub-sections that under the main topic.
The authors analyze the research problem with updated references that matched with the research problem. Suggested to add show the research process through a flowchart or some illustrated steps to be clear for the reader.
'no comment'
The author stated at (line#20), that the "Through theoretical analysis, we prove the
effectiveness of the anti-collusion defence method proposed ".
Need to discuss the practical approach that can be used to validate the findings also, since the authors consider only the theoretical analysis at a based to confirm the validity of the suggested approach.
Overall, the research topic and writing with the analysis is very good.
English proofreading is needed for the article.
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.