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.
Authors have addressed all the comments from the reviewers. Hence, this paper is recommended to accept in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The basic reports of literature survey and technical details are satisfied.
The experimental designs have been updated.
The GNN methodology and the accuracy improvement is well defined.
The paper has been updated for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Authors have addressed all the comments.
Authors have addressed all the comments.
Authors have addressed all the comments.
Authors have addressed all the comments.
After the first round of review, based on the the comments from the reviewers, a “Major Revision” is recommended. Authors should consider the following comments.
1. Add more figures and diagrams to clarify the methodology and presented results.
2. Clearly state the contribution of the presented work or perhaps to compare the performance of this work with other published works.
3. Enhance the validation of the results.
The topic of the paper is a topic worth discussion.
However, if the references are related to forecasting of crypto jacking, it would be relevant to the proposed work.
The tables analyzed in the reference summary like Table1, 2 to 7 need to be explained more as to its relevance to the proposed work and its outcome.
The features selected with the need for such a selection is to be explained clearly.
The experimental results are relevant.
Each of the output figures have to be explained in terms o fits advantages to forecasting any future crypto jacking events.
The ensemble method proposed has been proved to have a reduced accuracy when compared to the ARIMA and GNN. How then do the authors justify that the proposed work is an improvement?
Various findings have been given.
However, the paper title suggests "forecasting" of a crypto jacking attack.
The authors have interchanged the words detection, prediction and forecasting. It would be suitable if same word is used.
Comparison with existing methods would enhance the value of the findings.
Each findings have to be explained on terms of its relevance to forecasting of the crypto jacking attack.
The research discussion is recent .
The overall grammar has to be checked and terms like "we" can be avoided in the paper.
The study of “Forecasting cryptojacking attack trends in Internet of Things using machine learning and deep learning techniques" has involved a lot of work from the authors.
The manuscript has been presented in an attractive manner.
There are recent references provided.
Need to separate Introduction and Literature Survey sections
Figures are relevant, high quality and labeled
However, there are a few areas where authors can make the manuscript better.
Research within the Scope of the journal.
Extensive research conducted in accordance with the technical and standards
A clearly stated, pertinent, and significant research question.
Techniques those are adequately detailed and informed
The underlying data are all available and are controlled, reliable, and statistically sound.
Well-stated conclusions that relate to the original research topic but need to add the performance of the proposed system and future work
Need to add Main findings under the results section
Below are some suggestions that will improve the manuscript and benefit a wide range of readers.
1. Authors should clearly specify the significance of Forecasting cryptojacking attack trends in Internet of Things in Introduction section
2. Correct the values in Table 5 and 6
3. If possible separate the introduction into introduction and Literature Survey sections.
4. Add Challenges and Objectives into the Literature Survey sections
5. Please discuss the Time Series Analysis after the line No. 307
6. Line No. 334, incorrect point number mentioned
7. Line No. 348, incorrect point number mentioned, Please check for whole article
8. For figure 23, if possible please add the table for Comparison of accuracy of Each Attribute for All Models
9. Under the results section, add the Main findings
10. In Conclusion section add the performance of the proposed system and future work
This research introduces a method that synergizes time series analysis techniques with graph neural networks to predict cryptojacking attack trends specifically in the context of wireless sensor networks and IoT. It was focused on early detection and anticipatory insights into emerging attack patterns within these interconnected ecosystems.
Here are a few comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the research:
1- Lack of novelty in the research.
2- The Abstract is generic about the developed model. The explanation does not reflect the work has been done for this research. It spent more sentences showing the results of the tested models.
3- The limitation and challenges presented in the introduction can be shown in a better way instead of just listing them and mentioned the corresponded research. It needs more explanation or presented in a proper way to connected it well with the context. paragraphs in introduction need to be well connected and have good smooth transitions.
4- The structure of the research. I’m not sure if this is the final structure of not. It needs to be organized in a better way. Listing the summarization of the tables without showing the tables until the end is very confusing.
5- Do we need all the presented tables? Also, do we need of the attributes and the entries shown in the tables? Where did we use all these information in the research paper?
6- The graphs must be in high-resolution
7- Some vocabularies need to be changed to the commonly used terms in research papers. Avoid uncommon vocabularies when possible.
Recommendation: Reject. It needs a novel solution. Also, it needs major improvements in the paper’s structure and the flow.
As above
As above
As above
No. Comment. OK.
OK for experimental design. The algorithm (Algorithm 1) can be presented in flowchart version also. Models (Time Series, ARIMA, GNN, Ensemble) can be compared with their features.
OK for results and findings. Conclusions can be stated in point-wise fashion to make it more clear along with future scope.
A thorough English check is required. Grammatical errors should be checked.
For comparative analysis elaborate how federated learning can be used in this context.
More figures should be added to give a description of the proposed technique.
Elaborate the proposed contribution in more detail.
More statistical analysis should be provided to support the results of proposed technique.
To validate the results, more discussion should be added.
Comparison with state of the art results should be added.
Figures quality should be improved. Please follow journal guidelines regarding the figures.
Paper is written with clear English, proper thoughts, proper data etc.
Research questions, rigorous investigation, methods described - I found they are not up to the mark.
Validity of the findings - I am finding it difficult to comment on this.
Paper needs to be reframed again.
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.