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.
Thanks to the authors for your efforts to improve the work. This version successfully satisfied the reviewer. It can be accepted now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
The experimental results verify the effectiveness of community mining, but do not show that it can improve the effect of privacy protection. It is recommended to increase this analysis.
Authors put forward that the main work of the paper is to put forward the ' a privacy protection scheme '. However, the title of the paper does not reflect this point, and it is suggested to adjust it.
no comment
The reviewers have given suggestions and comments. Please revise the article according to the comments. Then the paper will be evaluated again.
This manuscript focuses on protecting the privacy leakage of data sharing. The authors propose an anonymous group structure algorithm based on community structure. This work is of practical significance. I have the following comments:
(1) I hope the authors could add more updated references, especially in the recent years.
(2) The authors should pay more attention to the spelling. In the algorithm table, the abbreviation of the algorithm is NSA, is it right? And there are some spelling errors. Such as, on page 8, “Experiments on three public social network datasets (Dataset dowloand from xx)”, “Table 2 displays the runtime performance of the three algorithms in the fou dataset”.
(3) Authors should descript the mechanism of proposed algorithm. It would be better to add a figure about the algorithm framework.
no comment
no comment
This paper proposed a novel privacy protection scheme for social networks based on Anonymous group structure. The authors discussed thoroughly their proposed algorithms, as well as related theoretical background and mathematical proofs.
Comprehensive experiments are included to demonstrate the performance of the proposed scheme.
However, I also found the following issues:
1. The name and abbreviation of Algorithm 1 are not consistent.
2. The layout of Algorithm 3 and Form 2 is not appropriate.
3. Formula 3 should be centered.
4. Definitions in PRELIMINARIES should give the source.
In summary, the research work in this article is valuable and that makes a valuable contribution to the utilization of anonymity technology in bolstering social network protection. After addressing the issues mentioned earlier, the article will present more comprehensive and lucid description of the work conducted.
(1) Some formula symbols are not very clear and accurate. In line 146, r1 may have been used incorrectly. In line 152-155, n does not appear in formula 2, and di, dj ∑ij, Γ and so on are also not explained. In Algorithm 1, η2 is not set in advance.
(2) Several sentences have unclear meanings. In line 250, what is 'fou dataset' ? In Figure 7, 'Modify' should be replaced with ‘Modified'. In Figure 8, what is 'C1' or 'C2'? In line 281, ’ Secondly‘ should be 'Thirdly'?
(3) In Figure 7 and 8, the horizontal axis should be named. A line of the average degree can be drawn and prominently marked "modified degree" of each nodes in Figure 7.
(1) Algorithm 4 is not used in the experiment. And, there is no explanation on how to select a level value in the article.
(2) In 'Compare original K-anonymization', simulation result analysis focuses on the comparison of 'degree'. Considering the purpose of this article is to develop anonymous group structure Algorithm, suggest to discuss some certain characteristic indicators of ’anonymous group structure‘ with different network sizes.
(1) In ABSTRACT, 'They can be utilized at different network sizes' is proposed. But, no specific judgment rules or standards of network sizes were proposed after Experiments.
(2) In line 44-46, three 'how to' questions were proposed. But, only the second one is fully discussed in the article. The others also need to be reflected in the discussion methods and experiments.
(3) In line 278, 'In this paper, a data-sharing scheme based on anonymized graph construction is proposed.' But, the purpose of this paper is not to propose 'a data-sharing scheme', so, suuggest adjusting the description of the conclusion.
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.