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 on resolving all concerns raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Congratulations on resolving all concerns raised from my side. Looking forward to see you again ;)
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please check and fix the typo issues in the final version. For example, in line 401, the text is bolded, but in line 400, it is not bolded.
The author's response answered my questions very well, and as the new version has been refined based on my suggestions, I recommend accepting this article
None
None
None
The paper thoroughly explores the evolving smart grid technology landscape, emphasizing cybersecurity challenges and solutions. It acknowledges the advanced but insufficient security technologies for today's digital world. The study design is strong, but suggestions for improvement include clarifying contributions in Section 1.2, organizing research questions, simplifying Section 4 structure, and revising unclear figures like 6, 14, and 16. Figures 9-19 could be presented in a higher-dimensional classification to enhance clarity.
Please fix the above issues in the final version.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The article has been well revised. I have no other comments.
This paper presents a comprehensive examination of the evolving landscape of smart grid (SG) technology, particularly focusing on the cybersecurity challenges and the application of modern technological solutions. The authors underscore that while current security technologies are highly advanced, they still fall short in meeting the exacting cybersecurity standards required in today's increasingly digital and interconnected world.
The overall study design is good.
no comment
There are some suggestions for the writing of this paper:
1. As for section 1.2 contribution of the study, here are some key points that could be considered for improvement:
Specify and Elaborate on Contributions: Each contribution listed should specify what new insights, methodologies, or findings the study offers in that area. For example, instead of simply stating "To know about different types of attacks on the smart grid," it could be rephrased to highlight what new understanding or perspective the study brings to this topic.
Distinctness of Each Contribution: Consider combining similar contributions or differentiating them more clearly. In most cases, three or four contributions are enough, but should be elaborate clearly and detailed.
Quantitative and Qualitative Metrics: If possible, include specific quantitative or qualitative metrics that demonstrate the impact or significance of the contributions.
2. The research questions are usually not put in tables. Please feel free to have a look at other paper, and find how they group research questions in their paper.
3. Section 4 has too many subsections. The authors may consider group in different ways: like a) b) c) d)
The author has made changes to the content, and I am quite satisfied. But there's a few more to consider.
1. Figures 6,14,16 are still unclear.
2. Figure 9-19 refers the content of the article and draws a simple construction diagram, but this should not be in the form of a survey paper. Authors should consider drawing a table or a figure including all the paper in a higher dimension and make classifications so that readers can intuitively see the essential differences between different papers at one time.
Missing a table or a figure including all the paper in a higher dimension and make classifications
no comment
no comment
The manuscript is well-organized and presents its content coherently. However, there are significant areas that require improvement. Specifically, the integration of figures and tables within the content needs attention to ensure clarity and completeness. Additionally, the resolution of the figures needs improvement to enhance the reader's ability to understand them effectively. There are also some formatting issues that should be addressed for a more polished and professional presentation. These revisions are crucial to enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is well-organized and presents its content in a coherent manner. However, there are significant areas that need improvement. Firstly, the integration of figures and tables within the content needs to be addressed to ensure clarity and completeness. Moreover, the current resolution of the figures is unsatisfactory, which compromises the reader's ability to understand and interpret the figure effectively. Lastly, there are some issues with the overall formatting that need to be rectified for a more polished and professional presentation. These revisions are essential to enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript.
The structure of the research is well-organized and comprehensive, covering the topic from various vantage points. Notably, the manuscript delves deep into energy efficiency, illustrating its importance in the context of Smart Grids. Additionally, the attention given to the security impacts, as seen from various facets of the SG network, adds depth to the research. It's evident that meticulous thought and effort have gone into examining the topic from multiple perspectives, making the study a valuable contribution to the field.
The manuscript offers robust and well-researched findings on the subject at hand. It delves deeply into the security aspects of Smart Grids, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the topic. By harnessing the power and precision of AI techniques, it elucidates how potential vulnerabilities within the Smart Grids can be promptly detected and mitigated. Furthermore, it's commendable how the manuscript doesn't just highlight the issues but also provides in-depth insights into cybersecurity challenges. These concerns are not just superficially mentioned; they are explored in depth, indicating a thorough research effort. The proposed solution, given its depth and approach, seems not only viable in theory but also sustainable when implemented in real-world scenarios. This combination of thorough research and practical solutions makes the manuscript a significant contribution to the field.
Thank you for your submission. The overall study is commendable, requiring only a few minor formatting revisions.
This study explores the development and importance of smart grids in updating our electrical infrastructure to meet society's growing needs. Smart grids are highlighted for their role in promoting energy efficiency, renewable sources, and reducing CO2 emissions. Yet, their intricate design poses cybersecurity challenges, especially with evolving cyber threats. The research studies different types of attack on smart grid system and emphasizes the role of AI, machine learning, and big data in enhancing grid security and touches on their broader applications, including in healthcare. The work stresses the critical role of smart grids for a sustainable energy future and the pressing need for heightened security, with AI and big data as potential solutions. Overall, this is an interesting work to guide enhancing security and reliability of this system. However, the authors are encouraged to organize their work with research questions and highlight their contribution in introduction. Also, please address the writing issues detailed in additional comments.
The authors are encouraged to organize their work with research questions and highlight their contribution in introduction.
Since this study puts up with research questions at section 3.1, and tries to answer in section 4. The research questions in section 3.1 is not highlighted perfectly. The authors may organize section 3.1 as: RQ1:What are different types of attacks on the smart Grid?
RQ2: What are security challenges of smart grids using AI and big data methods?
RQ3: What are possible solutions to..?
...
This would demonstrate this work more clearly. Also in the method section, it is better to describe what the authors have done to answer the RQs in details. Like: to answer RQ1, we ... To answer RQ2, we ...
In the evaluation section, it would be better to organize the results by the order of the RQs.
The authors are suggested to highlight their goal and corresponding contributions in introduction.
Besides, it is better to detail the methodology(section 3) parts to make this work replicable. For example, in section 3.2, it is unclear what the 5 digital libraries are? Although the authors mention IEEE, act,... in Figure 7, they should also explain in the text parts. All the figures about methodology should be thoroughly discussed and explained in section 3.
Only when the methodology is more detailed, the readers can be convinced by the results of the work.
There are some typo issues and incomplete sentences.
For example, at line 125: use artificial => use artificial intelligence?
at line 210, It also focuses on. => This is an incomplete sentence?
at line 216: 5 => Figure 5?
at line 441: 3.1=>4.3.1
Please address similar issues in this paper.
Also please give explanations to every table and figure. For example, at line 216, 5(may be figure 5?) and figure 6 are not explained here.
Summary: The paper, titled "Security risk models against attacks in smart grid using big data and artificial intelligence," is a survey paper aimed at synthesizing knowledge in smart grid cybersecurity, with a focus on AI and big data applications.
Strengths: It includes an extensive literature review and is timely and relevant to current technology trends.
Weaknesses: The paper suffers from complexity, lack of case studies, format errors, poor-quality of pictures, and confusing tables.
The paper's primary design is a comprehensive literature review, intending to collate and synthesize existing research in the realm of smart grid cybersecurity.
The lack of case studies and real-world applications indicates a gap in the study's design, which could have enhanced the practical understanding of the methodologies surveyed.
Details:
### Strengths
1. **Extensive Literature Review**: The paper successfully compiles a wide range of existing research, making it a valuable resource for those studying or working in the field.
2. **Timeliness and Relevance**: Addressing cybersecurity in smart grids is crucial in the current technological era, making the paper's focus highly pertinent.
### Weaknesses
1. **Complexity of Content**: The paper's depth, while a strength, might also pose challenges for readers less familiar with the technical aspects of AI and cybersecurity.
2. **Lack of Case Studies**: Including more real-world applications or case studies could enhance the practical understanding of the surveyed methodologies.
3. **Format error**: It doesn't seem to be using the latex template, all the pictures in this article are at the end of the article, and the text indentation in many places is very strange, is this a unique template form of this journal
4. **Quality of pictures**: The quality of the pictures is unusually blurry and many of them I could not make out. The author gives a very large number of pictures, but they all seem to make up the numbers, and I don't understand the significance of these pictures, e.g., Figure16 does not come with a corresponding citation on each branch.
5. **Quality of tables**: there are a large number of tables in the article, but the content seems to be randomly extracted from the abstract portion of these articles, which is not the way a survey is written. The text of these tables is confusing and does not clearly categorize and list the differences between the previous papers.
The paper's primary design is a comprehensive literature review, intending to collate and synthesize existing research in the realm of smart grid cybersecurity.
The lack of case studies and real-world applications indicates a gap in the study's design, which could have enhanced the practical understanding of the methodologies surveyed.
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.