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.
I am pleased to inform you that your work has now been accepted for publication in PeerJ Computer Science.
Please be advised that you are not permitted to add or remove authors or references post-acceptance, regardless of the reviewers' request(s).
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. On behalf of the Editors of PeerJ Computer Science, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.
With kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have answered my review concern very well in the manuscript.
The manuscript has been revised as per the reviewer's suggestions and it can be considered for publication
The manuscript has been revised as per the reviewer's suggestions and added a subsection “Comparison with other techniques” to compare the MIA results on DP-BCD to other state-of-the-art techniques, i.e., DP-SGD, Randomized Response, MemGuard, Adversarial Regularizations, and SELENA (Self Ensemble Architecture).
-
The manuscript can be considered for publication
The most of the reporting issues are fixed in the last version of the manuscript.
The most of the points raised by the reviewers have been addressed satisfactorily in the latest version.
Some comparisons with the recently proposed techniques are added.
Even the writing style still needs to be some improvements, it is acceptable.
I have received reviews of your manuscript from two scholars who are experts on the cited topic. They find the topic very interesting; however, several concerns must be addressed regarding experimental results, more datasets, and comparisons with current approaches. These issues require a major revision. Please refer to the reviewers’ comments listed at the end of this letter, and you will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point that is being raised when you submit your revised manuscript.
Thank you for considering PeerJ Computer Science for the publication of your research.
With kind regards,
• The basic reporting of the manuscript is clear and the problem statement is clearly explained
• The manuscript gives a good comprehensive study on Membership inference attack on DP-BCD. It would have been nice if you had highlighted experimental analysis different Deep learning models on different attacks and its solution. It is also suggested to work on the different categories of datasets.
• More comparisons on different datasets are required.
• More recent papers should be reviewed. There are still some more profound works that are not considered in this work.
The writing of this manuscript needs further improvements. There are some grammatical mistakes.
Even if the aim of the project is clearly given, The references are too old. The recently proposed techniques especially deep learning based ones must be added and compared with the proposed technique.
Experimental results were given but, the results and comparisons with the recently proposed techniques must be added also.
The results of the other benchmark tests should also be given.
The paper should be carefully revised by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability. The results must be justified and verified by the other techniques proposed recently.
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.