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.
Issues have been addressed, recommend publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
These still need to be addressed:
Basic reporting
Figures (e.g., Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4) are informative but should be more clearly referenced and discussed in the text.
Include captions that summarize the key takeaway from each figure.
Experimental design
Areas for Improvement:
Methodology Clarification:
The methodology section (1.2) lacks specific details on how sources were selected, filtered, and categorized. Add a flowchart or table summarizing your review protocol.
Bias & Coverage:
Currently, the analysis seems skewed toward implementation platforms from Meta, Unity, and Unreal. Broaden the scope to include more decentralized or open-source tools to reduce perceived bias.
Survey Depth:
Although many technologies are listed, the depth of analysis per category is uneven. A more balanced deep dive into fewer, more impactful features might be more effective.
Validity of the findings
The paper’s panoramic scope is valuable, especially given the lack of comprehensive defensive models in XR research.
To improve readability and academic rigor, consider dividing large tables (e.g., Table 2) into thematic groups and referencing them clearly in the text.
Add a glossary or acronym table—given the number of XR platforms and technical terms, this will aid accessibility.
Additional comments
Still Need to work on above mentioned points
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The authors addressed my comments. However, the article requires linguistic correction.
The authors addressed my comments. However, the article requires linguistic correction.
The authors addressed my comments. However, the article requires linguistic correction.
The authors addressed my comments. However, the article requires linguistic correction.
Figures (e.g., Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4) are informative but should be more clearly referenced and discussed in the text.
Include captions that summarize the key takeaway from each figure.
Areas for Improvement:
Methodology Clarification:
The methodology section (1.2) lacks specific details on how sources were selected, filtered, and categorized. Add a flowchart or table summarizing your review protocol.
Bias & Coverage:
Currently, the analysis seems skewed toward implementation platforms from Meta, Unity, and Unreal. Broaden the scope to include more decentralized or open-source tools to reduce perceived bias.
Survey Depth:
Although many technologies are listed, the depth of analysis per category is uneven. A more balanced deep dive into fewer, more impactful features might be more effective.
The paper’s panoramic scope is valuable, especially given the lack of comprehensive defensive models in XR research.
To improve readability and academic rigor, consider dividing large tables (e.g., Table 2) into thematic groups and referencing them clearly in the text.
Add a glossary or acronym table—given the number of XR platforms and technical terms, this will aid accessibility.
Still Need to work on above mentioned points
An interesting topic area, worthy of publication. The coverage is fairly thorough (but see reviewers' comments on areas for expansion and better framing). In all, the manuscript offers novices and experts alike some excellent pointers. The references section offers a range of sources and resources for follow-up which I appreciated.
However, the manuscript as it stands does require some work to make it of publishable standard. I point the authors toward the reviewers' comments, all of which I agree with.
All reviewers offer excellent pointers to improvement from *substantive* (e.g., "devote a paragraph or subsection to discuss the attack surface of the Metaverse and how these attacks prevail before diving into discussing them", "deeper investigation into existing forensic methods and how they can be adapted or enhanced for immersive environments", "Expand Global Regulatory Coverage", "Comprehensive Statistical Analysis") to recommendations for *readability* (e.g., "Table 6 should be very much improved. The tiny lettering is hard to read due to excessive white spaces.", "Improve the sublabels in Figure 9. Make them bigger for better readability, or use colors instead of shades.", to *consistency of presentation* ("Colors used for the diagrams should be selected professionally") and areas where *rephrasing* would be beneficial (e.g., "Pg 24, sub-discussion –South Korea, “According to them” doesn’t sound good to me").
If all reviewers' comments are addressed and suggestions are fully implemented, will make this manuscript of publication quality.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The Abstract does not provide any added value to the article, the issue needs to be improved. Additionally, it should be emphasized in the abstract that this is a review and not a research paper.
Keywords are missing.
No information was included regarding the review methodology and the basis on which the papers were qualified for the study.
What are the challenges in XR?
What are the limitations and future research?
No technical review of specific solutions has been done.
What about a mathematical description?
The work does not introduce any new elements concerning already published reviews (many recent and important works cannot be found in the reference list). It's more of an opinion... The material presented in this way requires additional details and reformulation. At this stage, I can recommend a major revision.
-
-
Major revision is accepted in the manuscript
1. Expand on Methodological Depth
The paper relies heavily on imported APIs and SDKs for identifying implementable attributes. Consider conducting empirical testing or simulations to validate how these attributes perform in real-world XR environments. This would strengthen the practical application of your proposed defensive model
2.Address the Limitations of Imported Libraries
The paper acknowledges that the XR defensive model depends on the capabilities of third-party libraries. Future work could explore developing custom security modules where existing libraries lack comprehensive protection
3.Automation for Security Evaluation
Introduce automated mechanisms to assess the security posture of XR systems. Developing an XR security benchmarking tool could provide consistent evaluations and highlight vulnerabilities efficiently
4.Clarity and Language Precision
Improve the clarity of complex sections, especially in the introduction and methodology. Language should be revised for greater coherence to ensure accessibility to a broader audience
5.Detailed Analysis of XR Forensics
While the paper touches on XR forensics and incident reporting, it could benefit from a deeper investigation into existing forensic methods and how they can be adapted or enhanced for immersive environments
6.Expand Global Regulatory Coverage
Although the paper discusses major regions like the EU, South Korea, and the USA, further examination of emerging regulations in countries like India or Australia could provide a more global perspective
7.Comprehensive Statistical Analysis
Incorporate statistical analysis to quantify the effectiveness of the proposed defensive mechanisms. This would provide empirical evidence to support your claims and make your conclusions more robust
8.Enhance Visual Representation
The figures illustrating XR security attributes could be improved with more detailed annotations and comparisons across different XR platforms to highlight the gaps and strengths more clearly
-
-
-
-
-
The manuscript's abstract should be properly rewritten. The last line and sentence should be “to enhance the security posture of XR systems.”
All R’s (VR, XR, MR, AR) fall under the immersive technologies umbrella. The authors should include this categorization and use it where necessary in the manuscript.
The authors should devote a paragraph or subsection to discuss the attack surface of the Metaverse and how these attacks prevail before diving into discussing them.
Colors used for the diagrams should be selected professionally. Fig. 3 and 5, unlike the previous ones, are well presented and appreciated.
Improve the sublabels in Figure 9. Make them bigger for better readability, or use colors instead of shades.
Functions in the manuscript can be categorized in the table for better readability. The authors should look for a better way to present these functions so readers can appreciate them.
Pg 24, sub-discussion –South Korea, “According to them” doesn’t sound good to me,
Table 6 should be very much improved. The tiny lettering is hard to read due to excessive white spaces.
Every Abbreviation in the references must be retained. No small letters. E.g., iot, ar, vr, etc. Capitalization should be standardized. Provide URLs to articles where available.
Recommendation 4 of the XR checklist, stating “transparency,” is generic and can be more specific.
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.