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.
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ Computer Science. Your manuscript has been Accepted for publication. Congratulations!
No comment
No comment
No comment
Please read the comments carefully.
[# 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/ #]
- The problem statement should be included implicitly in the introduction section. No need to repeat it again in the Method section.
- It is mentioned that (in abstract and other section): "the proposed method can accurately locate the family of phishing webpages and can detect phishing webpages efficiently".
However, the proposed method is based on clustering which has high computational cost. Please justify how the proposed method is more efficient?
- is it possible to discuss the benefits of this kind of detection method comparing to using ML methods?
- The experimental design is described well. However, the time of detection should discuss the clustering time which is necessary to perform this method.
Also discuss the cost/time of generating the fingerprint?
- Will the fingerprint will be the same even you use different websites in the testing? When it should be updated? Will the detection rate will be enhanced if we use more websites in the training? Discuss this.
- The validation (not evaluation) of the proposed method is not clear. Example: How you ensure that the proposed fingerprint is valid?
The authors compared the proposed method using different parameters (for the same method). Is it possible to compare the performance of this proposed method with other previous methods to show the enhancements obtained?
- The best values in all tables should be highlighted (bold) to make the comparison easy.
Certain sections of the paper require major revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Necessary references to the existing techniques should be provided in the experimental result section. Moreover, a comparative analysis of the proposed technique needs to be carried out with other techniques proposed in the literature to validate the effectiveness of the proposed model
No Comment
Some sections of the paper require proofreading to fix grammatical and typographical errors.
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.