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.
All revisions requested by the reviewers have been fully addressed. Therefore, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript written very good. Also, the authors correct all the suggested comments.
No comment
No comment
Nothing
After a detailed evaluation, the reviewers have recommended major revisions. While your study addresses an important topic in cybersecurity and data management, several critical areas require improvement to meet the journal's publication standards. These areas include the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript, the integration of foundational literature, and the justification of methodological choices. Specifically, the literature review, though relevant, lacks critical references and synthesis of research gaps. Methodologically, concerns were raised regarding the limited sample size, participant selection, clustering parameter justification, and insufficient discussion on privacy handling. Additionally, the findings, although statistically sound, were considered to offer limited novelty and require a stronger emphasis on broader applicability, scalability, and real-world impact. The reviewers also highlighted that several sections, particularly the statistical analysis and literature review, are overly detailed and repetitive, which hinders readability. To enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of your work, we request that you condense repetitive sections, provide more thorough methodological justifications, integrate key literature, and expand on the practical implications of your findings. Addressing these revisions will significantly improve the manuscript's quality and contribution to the field. We look forward to your revised submission along with a detailed response to each reviewer comment.
The manuscript has clear language, though some sections, such as the demographic discussions in Section 4.1, are overly descriptive and could be condensed for better readability.
Literature review is relevant, but it lacks foundational references in cyber-biosecurity, weakening the theoretical grounding.
The hypotheses are relevant but not always clearly linked to the findings, limiting coherence.
To improve, I suggest streamlining the repetitive sections, integrate foundational works.
The research addresses an important gap, but the limited sample size (70 participants across five organizations) raises concerns about generalizability.
Participant privacy handling and data anonymization process, are not discussed.
While the methods are detailed, clustering parameter selection and its influence on results are not explained.
I recommend addressing the justification of your sampling choices, elaborate on clustering parameters, and adding a section describing how data privacy and anonymization were handled to strengthen the methodology.
The findings are statistically sound and relevant but lack novelty, as the study refines existing concepts rather than introducing groundbreaking advancements.
The scalability of recommendations, limitations and reproducibility in other domains are not discussed, limiting broader applicability.
The conclusions align with the research question but are not specific enough in addressing barriers or providing actionable strategies for different organizational profiles.
Expand on the practical implications of your findings, discuss broader scalability, and clarify measures taken during data collection and sharing.
The manuscript written with clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout, the literature references are sufficient field background, manuscript has professional article structure, figures, tables, and the Raw data is shared.
no comment
no comment
1- Your introduction needs more detail. I suggest that you improve the description at lines 42- 50 by added more details about Next-generation sequencing).
2- At line 71, remove "?" from the end of the sentence.
3- In Table 4, I suggest to move "Under 18" to the top of the table and became the first choice. The table will be in the following order:
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
4- In Page 26, it contains only one figure (Figure 20), I suggest to move lines 737- 757 from next page to became under the Figure 20.
The paper addresses a crucial cybersecurity issue in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) data management, an area of growing concern.
The study employs various statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and cluster analysis, which add rigor.
The paper follows a logical structure, covering background, methodology, findings, and conclusions systematically.
The research includes data from multiple organizations and diverse participant roles, strengthening its findings
But the authors must correct the following remarks
1. Clarity and Conciseness
The paper is overly lengthy in some sections, particularly in statistical analysis and literature review. Some discussions are repetitive, making it harder to extract key insights.
2. Literature Review – Lack of Critical Analysis
While the literature review cites relevant sources, it lacks a critical synthesis of existing research gaps. It presents previous studies but does not sufficiently discuss how this research builds upon them.
3. Research Methodology – Insufficient Justification
The choice of statistical methods (chi-square tests, cluster analysis, etc.) is not well justified. The selection of participants and organizations is not fully explained, raising concerns about potential bias.
4. Data Presentation – Overly Complex
The article includes a large number of tables and figures, but some are difficult to interpret, and others seem redundant. Some charts lack clear labeling or explanation.
5. Discussion and Interpretation – Limited Real-World Application
While the study identifies security gaps, it does not sufficiently discuss the real-world implications of its findings. There is limited discussion on how organizations can implement these recommendations effectively.
6. Conclusion – Lacks a Strong Closing Argument
The conclusion summarizes the study but does not strongly emphasize its broader significance or impact. Future research directions are vague.
The study is original and relevant but requires substantial improvements in defining the research question, articulating its contribution to existing knowledge, justifying methodological choices, and ensuring ethical transparency. Strengthening these areas will enhance the article’s credibility and impact.
The study is based on responses from 70 participants across multiple organizations and countries. However, the sample size is relatively small for broad generalization, and there is no discussion on how representative the sample is.
The findings are discussed, but there is limited comparison with prior studies. This makes it difficult to assess how well the results align with or challenge existing literature.
The article presents an important and underexplored topic, but it requires significant revisions to enhance its clarity, methodological rigor, and impact. Strengthening the research question, refining the methodology, improving the discussion of findings, and offering concrete recommendations will improve its academic and practical value.
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.