Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 30th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 21st, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 15th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 21st, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 21, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Since the comments have been addressed, we are happy to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for the publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The changes made are sufficient.

Experimental design

The changes made are sufficient.

Validity of the findings

The changes made are sufficient.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The revised manuscript can be accepted as presented.

Experimental design

The revised manuscript can be accepted as presented.

Validity of the findings

The revised manuscript can be accepted as presented.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 21, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The reviewers have pointed out that important parts are missing. More details are still needed.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: This is a resubmission of a submission which previously received an "open rejection" decision. R1 and R2 were 2 of the original reviewers on that earlier submission #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

You presented a method for detecting unknown malware families using the Zero Shot learning method. However, I could not see a class belonging to zero-day attacks in the dataset. How did you detect zero-day attacks or how did you determine that they could be detected?

Experimental design

It is insufficient to compare your method with the ResNet-34 architecture. There are many CNN architectures. You should also compare it with architectures with different structures.

Validity of the findings

Has an ablation study been done? If you can obtain an accuracy and fscore, you can also add roc curves.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

As pointed out below, the authors have not fully addressed the requested revisions.

- Why does the validation curve in the loss curve shown in Figure 13 end at the 100th epoch? This loss curve is not correct for proper training.

Experimental design

- AUC Metric also can be provided.

Validity of the findings

- Providing the confusion matrix would also help in better understanding the model's performance.

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.