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 authors considered the minor issues, and it can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors must revise according to the reviewers. In the case of Reviewer 1, the references recommended should be added only if they add value to the paper.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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 work has a good technical definition and specifications.
I believe it will be able to contribute to the magazine and readers with some improvements. I suggest that the authors clarify the open problems the work aims to solve in the introduction.
A comparative section with the state of the art about the work developed is necessary. Include works published in the last 5 years.
These works can contribute to the work developed:
https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194312
https://doi.org/10.3390/a16010038
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
In section 5, it is unclear power consumption, battery usage and definitions of data type, quantity and size for all tests performed.
The conclusions are poor, I strongly suggest that the authors value the effort and clearly describe the problems solved, the concrete results obtained and compared, the news and especially the scientific contributions of the article. Finally, I strongly suggest you add any open points for readers to develop in future work.
I hope I have contributed to improving the work.
This work is interesting. It concerns a proposal for a new two-party PAKE version of Kyber KEM. The work is done professionally. Formal results prove the content.
The experiment is described well. However, the work is not readable. Some of the details are not explained well. The work is not self-contained, i.e., it could not be read without referenced papers.
The validity of the findings is proven.
I propose adding more comments and explanations to the work as well as editing it carefully.
The paper presents a novel password-authenticated key exchange (PAKE) scheme based on Kyber, tailored for mobile environments. Below are some areas of improvement and suggestions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and depth of the manuscript.
The introduction is clear and states the work motivation clearly;
Some acronyms are not described in the text. As an example: MLWE, CDF-Zip, and others;
The paper is written in English at a proficient level, and it is well-structured. However, the article is reasonably complex, so understanding that it is a complete subject, it would be appropriate to add some explanations and/or concepts so that more readers can understand and replicate the work in its totality. Some references may help.
I don’t have concerns in this matter. Once more, the experiments are well-designed and described, but the complexity inherent to the subject is not negligible. Some references may help to enlighten a broader audience.
No concerns were, as well.
The article is written in English and uses clear, concise, technically correct text. The article complies with professional standards of courtesy and expression.
Literature references, adequate field history/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables are appropriate. Data has been shared.
In the study, all results related to the hypothesis are given.
The results of the study were tried to be expressed clearly with tables.
This is a study within the Scope of the Journal.
In the first part, the research question could have been defined more clearly. The research question could be supported with references.
The problem proposed to be solved in the study was carried out at an appropriate technical standard and the results were supported by tables and figures.
In the study, the method and method are explained in the 2nd and 3rd section.
In the study, the data used for the Results are acceptable and ready for use.
The results are expressed appropriately. The data in the tables and figures have been interpreted correctly. In the study, technical and mathematical aspects for the solution of the mentioned problem are appropriately stated in the 3rd and 4th chapters.
In the study, the data used for the Results are acceptable and ready for use.
The results are expressed appropriately. The data in the tables and figures have been interpreted correctly. In the study, technical and mathematical aspects for the solution of the mentioned problem are appropriately stated in the 3rd and 4th chapters.
In the conclusion part, suggestions can be made about future studies.
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.