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.
I am pleased to inform you that your work has now been accepted for publication in PeerJ Computer Science.
Please be advised that you cannot add or remove authors or references post-acceptance, regardless of the reviewers' request(s).
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. I look forward to your continued contributions on behalf of the Editors of PeerJ Computer Science.
With kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Carlos Fernandez-Lozano, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
All concerns raised by the reviewers have been partially addressed. The manuscript still needs further clarification regarding comparisons with previously reported approaches and the hyperparameter selection for the ML models. A table with hyperparameters should be provided. These issues have not been addressed and therefore a minor revision is required. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point that is being raised when you submit your revised manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The author has addressed all my concerns.
I have received reviews of your manuscript from scholars who are experts on the cited topic. They find the topic interesting; however, several concerns regarding experimental setup and comparisons with previously reported approaches must be addressed. These issues require a major revision. Please refer to the reviewers’ comments at the end of this letter; you will see that they advise you to revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each concern when you submit your revised manuscript.
Thank you for considering PeerJ Computer Science for the publication of your research.
With kind regards,
The manuscript is written in clear and professional English, making it easy to follow. The author provides a comprehensive background and context, referencing existing literature effectively. The article is well-structured, with figures and tables that support the narrative. The results are self-contained and relevant to the hypothesis, with clear definitions of terms used throughout the study. The clarity and detail make the work reproducible.
The research is original and relevant to the journal's scope, focusing on Android malware detection. The research question is well-defined and meaningful, addressing a gap by improving upon DREBIN with fewer features. The investigation is thorough, adhering to high technical and ethical standards. The methods are described in detail, allowing for replication. The author explains the selection of datasets, dimension reduction, and machine learning algorithms comprehensively, comparing existing methods and justifying their choices.
The findings are robust and statistically sound, with a thorough evaluation using different machine learning models. The author demonstrates how fewer features achieve slightly better performance than previous methods. While the novelty is clear, additional insights into why the selected features are effective would strengthen the paper, despite the challenge posed by the large number of features. The conclusions are well-stated and linked to the original research question, supported by the results.
The paper presents a convincing study on Android malware detection using machine learning. The clarity of the writing and thoroughness of the methodology are commendable. Providing insights into the selected features' effectiveness, while challenging, would enhance the paper. Overall, the research is impressive and contributes valuable findings to the field.
The format can be improved.
The method section must be more clear and it must be given in detail. There must be more comparisons with the other recently proposed methods in order to judge the impact and difference of the newly proposed approach.
There must be more comparisons with the other recently proposed methods in order to judge the impact and difference of the newly proposed approach. There must be more references from the latest research on this area/topic.
The paper should be carefully revised by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability.
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.