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.
Dear Authors,
The reviewers now think that your manuscript appears much improved. The manuscript now seems ready for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The work appears much improved, with the authors giving their own perspectives. I thank them for their efforts.
The work is now appropriate and is well structured and designed.
Yes, the findings are validated with proper references.
**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.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
Thank you for your efforts. The author has adequately responded to all the comments.
-
-
The authors have made many changes to the manuscript. However, the manuscript still requires many changes to be eligible for publication. The article fails in the following aspects:
A review needs to provide the authors' insights regarding the literature on the topic. For example, what type of attack is most possible and why? Why does literature discuss certain types of attacks more than others, etc? The same analysis should be done for machine learning techniques, and they should be discussed from the perspective of MGs by giving their own perspectives (which technique is best suited for energy transactions and why?; Which is best for real-time applications and why?) This is the main shortcoming. Even though the authors provide an exhaustive review of the literature, it will be of little value without giving their own perspectives
The review article appears well-designed and needs no improvement in this area.
All findings are substantiated with relevant literature
It would be highly beneficial if the authors gave their own inputs and additional insights on the existing literature from the perspective of MGs, and did not just give a collection of existing works. They can perform a deeper analysis of the existing works, identify the reason for the choice of certain techniques for some particular application, and provide suggestions on future implementations.
**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 article covers a relevant and timely topic and demonstrates notable effort. However, several revisions are necessary to meet the journal’s publication standards. Figures such as 1, 2, and 9 require improvement in both clarity and design quality to enhance readability and professionalism. Inconsistencies in formatting—such as mixed use of “Fig.” and “Figure”—should be addressed for uniformity. Additionally, there are grammatical issues throughout the text, including incorrect capitalization at the beginning of sentences and occasional informal contractions. It is also recommended to include more references in key sections (e.g., Microgrid Overview and tables) to strengthen scientific credibility. Finally, a clear roadmap at the end of the introduction would help guide readers through the structure of the review. These adjustments will significantly improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
The article presents valuable content and addresses an important topic; however, several areas require revision to meet the journal’s standards.
Figures – Figures 1, 2, and 9 need improvement. Figure 1 appears overly simplistic, and Figures 2 and 9 are blurry. Replacing them with clearer and more professionally designed images would enhance the overall presentation.
Formatting and Consistency – There are inconsistencies in the use of terms such as “Fig.” vs. “Figure” and variations in capitalization and punctuation (e.g., lowercase letters starting sentences). Unifying these elements would improve the article's readability and formal tone.
Grammar and Language – Minor grammatical issues, especially related to capitalization and use of contractions (e.g., "’s"), should be corrected throughout to maintain academic integrity.
Structure – A roadmap at the end of the introduction would help readers better understand the structure and scope of the review.
References – Some parts, such as the overview of microgrids and Tables 2 and 3, lack sufficient references. Adding citations to support the provided information would strengthen the scientific credibility.
With these revisions, the article has the potential to meet the required standards and contribute significantly to the literature.
The article addresses a significant topic; however, several aspects need improvement to meet the journal’s standards:
Clarity of Figures: Figures 1, 2, and 9 are either unclear or appear of low quality. It is recommended to improve the resolution and design of these figures to make them more suitable for publication in an academic journal.
Consistency in Terminology: There are inconsistencies in the use of "Fig." and "Figure" throughout the manuscript. Please ensure that the terminology is uniform across all sections.
Grammar and Formatting: Minor grammatical issues, including incorrect capitalization and use of contractions (e.g., "’s"), should be addressed. Ensure all sentences start with capital letters and avoid informal language.
References: Certain sections, such as the overview of microgrids and Tables 2 and 3, lack proper references. Adding citations will enhance the credibility and scientific rigor of the paper.
Roadmap: A roadmap at the end of the introduction would improve the readability of the manuscript and provide a clear overview of the topics covered.
Addressing these points will significantly improve the quality of the manuscript and increase its suitability for publication.
Thank you for the authors’ effort. This paper is valuable. However, I have some concerns about this paper:
1. The statement of “Future research avenues include the use of hybrid models” is awkward. Please use a better one.
2. Please add the abbreviation table. It is important for this study.
3. When you introduce an abbreviation at the beginning of the study, please avoid repeating the abbreviation unnecessarily throughout the manuscript. For example, you have used the abbreviation for Machine Learning (ML) repeatedly. Kindly revise this in your paper, and make similar corrections for other cases as well.
4. This paper requires a roadmap to outline the scope and key elements covered in this study. Please include it at the end of the Introduction section.
5. Please avoid using apostrophes ('s) in the manuscript, as they affect the formal tone of the paper. Kindly correct this throughout the entire manuscript to maintain a professional and academic style.
6. At the end of the Introduction, please provide a table comparing your review study with at least seven other review papers on this topic. This comparison should highlight the gaps or limitations in the existing studies that your work aims to address.
7. In Table 1, you have summarized the methods, applications, security approaches, and contributions of the related works. Additionally, in the Survey Methodology section, you have stated that the related studies were prioritized based on recency, primarily within a 3-year range (2022–2024), and if not, within 5 to 10 years, except for significant or foundational works. However, there are some relevant studies that appear to be missing from your review. I suggest including additional key references such as "A Real-Time and Online Dynamic Reconfiguration against Cyber-Attacks to Enhance Security and Cost-Efficiency in Smart Power Microgrids Using Deep Learning (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7080/12/10/197)" to further enrich the comprehensiveness and depth of your review. Please consider revisiting your literature selection to ensure broader coverage of recent and impactful studies in this area. Please use the newest references in this study.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
8. If authors are using "Fig." for figures throughout the paper, please ensure consistency by using the same term ("Fig.") for all figures and their captions. For example, authors have used "Fig. 2" in one place and "Figure 1" in another, which creates inconsistency. Please correct this throughout the manuscript to maintain uniformity.
9. Please pay attention to capitalizing the first letter of sentences. It is crucial throughout the manuscript to ensure there are no grammatical or syntactical errors at first glance. For instance, "the block header composes six types of information:" should be corrected to "The block header composes six types of information:"
10. Since this is a review paper, references are of great importance to convincingly support the claims made and ensure that they are backed by scientific evidence. However, in sections such as "Overview of Microgrid," Table 3, Table 2, Table4, Table 6, Table 7 “Machine Learning Techniques”, “Supervised Learning”, “Unsupervised Learning” and so on, I have not seen any references, which undermines the scientific credibility of the paper. Please fix it in the whole paper.
11. Figure 1 appears overly simplistic and lacks visual appeal, making it seem somewhat unprofessional. Please improve its design to ensure it is visually suitable for a scientific journal.
12. In addition, Figures 2,9,10 and 13 are noticeably blurry, which affects the overall quality and readability of the visuals.
The article reports different techniques of machine learning and its combination with blockchain for cybersecurity. However, these two have been separately detailed, and the author failed to provide a comprehensive discussion on the combination, which is the main aspect. A review is uppose to provide the author's own opinion rather than report existing literature on this topic. For eg, why certain machine learning techniques are preferred for this aspect, etc.
The overall organization of the manuscript is also not upto the standard. Different sections have been present that are already covered in other review, for example, machine learning techniques and cyberattacks are presented up to reference 88 (about 85% of the references), having nothing to do with the main theme of the manuscript
As it is a review paper, there is nothing much to validate as all the references are cited
The authors have considered a topic that has been extensively reviewed in the literature. Also, the main theme is not fully discussed, and other topics that were elaborately discussed in other literature have been discussed in the work.
The authors should focus on combining blockchain with microgrids, identify the applications in MGs that require this technology (energy transactions, grid control), identify how the attacks can cripple these applications, and so on. However, such a focused approach is lacking.
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.