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.
The authors have made all the required changes.
Authors added several figures and make the whole paper readable by general audience.
As I mentioned in previous major review, experimental design is ok.
Validity of finding is ok.
Authors improved the paper substantially and added several improvements and therefore no more further comments. Paper can be accepted in its present form.
Authors proposed all changes as mentioned in previous review report.
The experimental design of the paper is good, and it presents important results. No further comments.
Instructions are added for verifying code. No further comments.
Authors made all changes and presentation of the paper seems good and therefore paper can be accepted in present form.
Please revise the manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
In this paper, the authors presented an experiment where honeypot is combined with machine learning to detect botnet in the smart factory.
The paper well is well written in terms of English, but the overall structure of the paper is not well organised. The presentation of the paper needs to be improved for better understanding of readers.
Instead of writing your views in the form of long sentences, authors should follow the following points:
1. Better to use more bullet points to discuss problem and solutions separately.
2. Use a preliminary section, where describe several terms/definitions used throughout the paper.
3. Use tables in the related work so that reader can easily compare the state of art work results. No one wants to read long sentences to compare the results of the paper.
4. Try to draw some figures to explain your point of views and several attacks.
Overall, please improve to presentation of the paper to make it more interesting.
Authors uploaded files related to code of the experiment. However, I suggest to upload them on github and also mention some instructions to implement them like standard projects. However, if not willing to publicly share the code in such case authors should upload some instruction to verify the codes and dataset.
Results presented by authors are naive and can be verified.
Please improve the overall presentation of the paper as mentioned above.
Authors proposed a honeypot combined machine learning model that is proved to be highly feasible for detecting botnet in the smart factory. The paper is interesting, and the work itself is novel.
However, I strongly recommend authors to work properly on the presentation of the paper.
The experimental design of the paper is good, and it presents important results.
All the results can be verified from the available code and therefore, no issue with the validity of the article. However, pls also upload instruction to run the code.
The topic of the paper is interesting and relevant but not well organised in terms of presentation. Several typos and grammar mistakes are available and require a proper proofread. Also, please work more on the formatting of the paper.
Also, I don't know why the authors removed all figures and table at the end of the article. It's better to post at the same place where you gave a reference. The current view of the paper seems like essay and therefore not interesting for technical and quick readers.
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.