24小时热门版块排行榜     意得论文润色满3千送无线充电宝

查看: 600  |  回复: 12

jiujiunianli

新虫 (小有名气)

[交流] IEEE Access初审意见还有戏吗?已有11人参与

7月31日投IEEE Access,今天8月19日收到初审意见,4位评审都是Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)。
请问,重投录用的概率大吗?


4个审稿人意见如下:


Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
This paper presents a new idea of Integer Factorization based on Pisano period.
I think the idea is interesting. However, the claim that this can be used for RSA cracking is rather superficial. As we know, RSA security is not provably equivalent to factoring, so to break RSA, in fact we do not really have to go through integer factorization.
While this paper presents a new approach for integer factorization, the example provided is toy example. If the author provides with a large number of composite which can be somehow factorized with this method and not other means, then it would be more convincing.

In the recent years, there have been many advances in the effort to break RSA algorithm. All of the new references are missing in the manusript. Please check some papers in the recent conferences.

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes

Is the paper technically sound?: Yes

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Can be improved


Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
An abstract should start with a brief overview of the topic.
A narration should be given without any numeration nor formula.
A comma should not be located prior to an and.
What is it? A pronounce should be limited to a special case of expression.
There are many extra spaces throughout the paper.
A symbol n has been used for several different variables. For instance, n should be reserved for the bit size of N only.
The author should maintain a consistent notation such as N = PQ.
… thereby transforming the NP problem into P problem. The authors have made an over claimed statement. No one has shown that IF on RSA is in fact an NPC problem.

A superscript notation should be adhered to. There is missing power of n in the Theorem 4. What is an r?
In Theorem 3, what is the power of s?
When ?0 = 0, {??(??? ?)} is considered to be purely constrained periodic[10]. This statement is hanging.
According to the definition of ?(?), ? ? ??(?)/2 is known, from (3) we can have that when 4|?(?), ? > 1 and ? = 2, when 2 ∥ ?(?), it is similar to (1) that … What is the meaning of || here?
Theorem 5 shows that the Pisano period is ? times the constrained period, i.e. ?(?) = ??(?).
An r can just be a factor of ?(?). There are more possible values of r than just 1, 2 and 4.

Finding the period p is a difficult problem which this paper has trivially skipped.
Pisano period is still protected by the strong criteria of prime numbers. The authors cannot claim that their method can performed better than Elliptic Curve method which overcomes the strong criteria of prime numbers.
An efficient searching algorithm on Pisano period is valuable here.
Step 2, solving the values of ?1 and ?2 by (11). What is (11)?

There are three algorithms: recursive algorithm, loop algorithm, fast doubling algorithm[13], the time complexity of these three algorithms is O(??), ?(?), ?(??? ?). For a given bit size n, the textbook algorithm should start from O(n^3).

In Algorithm 2: Fast Fibonacci Modulo Algorithm, it is misleading to use the symbol % when dealing with large integer arithmetic.

The sample given right after Algorithm 3 is misleading. The problem size is smaller than (Q-P)/2 = 2. A basic factoring algorithm should be able to solve the problem in less than 2 attempts. A larger sample pair should be given such as P=677 and Q=991.
An experiment on N=PQ beyond 256 bits would shed some light on the true performance of the proposed method among others.
This paper has described an idea on RSA factoring via Pisano period. Nevertheless, the authors have not been able to show valuable insight on the efficiency of their proposed method.
This paper does not present a new knowledge in RSA factoring. However, a credit can be given to those wrote about it first with small valuable contribution.



Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Integer Factorization and RSA Cracking Algorithm Based on Pisano Period
This paper does not present a new knowledge in RSA factoring. However, a credit can be given to those wrote about it first with small valuable contribution.

Is the paper technically sound?: This paper has described an idea on RSA factoring via Pisano period. Nevertheless, the authors have not been able to show valuable insight on the efficiency of their proposed method.

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: No, I am sorry to say the authors should spend more time in this topic.

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes, they are

Reviewer: 3

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
There are many works that claims to tackle famous problems, and most of them has been rejected by simple mistakes.
But I felt a flavor of a seed of interesting works from the submitted paper.
Factoring from the period finding or collision finding is a major strategy for attacking RSA using "quantum computers."
So, I want to encourage the authors to resubmit by adding the discussion about quantum attacks on RSA, and modify the errors that I point out below.
I suspect theorems about Fibonacci sequence and Pisano period proved in the paper are re-discoverings of some previous works,
so, you can shrink your paper by referring them.

* Due to the time limitation, I didn't check the proofs, but the following arguments are not clear to me:
- Line 6 of proof of Theorem 2: how F_{ad(m)-1}*F_r=0 mod m implies m|F_r? It doesn't hold in general.
- Corollaries b) d(m1)|d(m2) => m1|m2 is not trivial to me.
- Line 3 of proof of Theorem 3: "Thus, F_{d(m)+k} ... 0\le k\le d(m)-1." doesn't make sense.


* The submitted manuscript looks written by using MS word, I'm not sure if it is allowed by the journal's condition,
but I think it is not good for reading in scientific area, so you should to use the TeX.

* The discussion in Section IV.B is the collision finding via the birthday paradox, you should omit some explanation by following some textbooks.

* The last of Section IV is the most mysterious argument to me. How do you justify N1=N^{1/6}?
It is an essential matter for the complexity analysis.

*Typos:

p.1, right, l.44, "lg n" and "lg lg n", missing font.

p.1, right, l.44, "thereby transforming the NP problem into P problem" this is not true.

p.2, sentence of Th. 2 Fn'=e^n+~e is Fn'=e^n+(~e)^n

p.3, l.22, Theorem 3 and 5 are typos of 2 and 3?

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes

Is the paper technically sound?: Yes, but partially.

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes, but it looks the MS word.

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes


Reviewer: 4

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
See Attached.

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: If corrected, it has the potential to.

Is the paper technically sound?: See the attached review.  Mistakes in the exposition prevent the referee from determining this yet.

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: It is not presented as such currently.

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No.  See the comments in the report.

If you have any questions, please contact article administrator:

发自小木虫Android客户端
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

13469989708

新虫 (小有名气)

★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
liouzhan654: 金币+1, 感谢交流 2019-08-20 08:24:47
这是让你改好了重新投啊,好好改了再投应该问题不大

发自小木虫Android客户端
2楼2019-08-19 20:49:40
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

山间一月

新虫 (著名写手)

我也是今天收到结果,只有两个审稿老师,都是通过,然后就说录用让提交终稿,是不是有点草率

发自小木虫Android客户端
3楼2019-08-19 20:59:10
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

cngemy

至尊木虫 (正式写手)

一切皆有可能
4楼2019-08-19 20:59:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

philosong

木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
典型的文章没有写好,还给机会吧。

发自小木虫Android客户端
生活就是生活
5楼2019-08-19 22:30:34
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

fangyl2005

新虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
IEEE ACCESS 本身就是追求完整,不求创新。

发自小木虫Android客户端
6楼2019-08-19 22:45:57
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

为了孙悟空

铜虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
都说了update and resubmit encouraged,还担心啥
refreshing
7楼2019-08-19 23:26:27
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

肌肉博士哥哥

新虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
ieee access就没听说拒过谁...

发自小木虫IOS客户端
8楼2019-08-20 00:49:30
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

superceng

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

無雙の猛將


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
重投就是有戏的,杂志为了提高拒稿率做的小伎俩~~~

发自小木虫IOS客户端
说自己的,让别人走路去吧!
9楼2019-08-20 06:34:05
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

漂泊hk

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
8楼: Originally posted by 肌肉博士哥哥 at 2019-08-20 00:49:30
ieee access就没听说拒过谁...

还是拒过很多的
10楼2019-08-20 18:33:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 jiujiunianli 的主题更新
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[教师之家] 讨厌的研究生生活 +29 夜半花落 2019-09-18 33/1650 2019-09-20 13:45 by 夜半花落
[文学芳草园] 我等的人,她在多远的未来? +7 小小辉998 2019-09-17 14/700 2019-09-20 13:29 by unkele
[硕博家园] 如果同学请你帮忙,帮还不是不帮?(科研上的) +8 Dr.B1992 2019-09-19 11/550 2019-09-19 22:16 by Dr.B1992
[博后之家] 博后发现独自科研很难 +6 艮艮刘 2019-09-16 20/1000 2019-09-19 21:44 by 向宽处行
[教师之家] 面对毫无主动性毫无上进心的研究生咋办啊? +46 Carry00 2019-09-15 52/2600 2019-09-19 20:08 by 1443835893
[博后之家] 找到了工作,还应该做博后吗? +10 kudou123 2019-09-19 14/700 2019-09-19 18:00 by 里开朗琪罗
[论文投稿] 爱思唯尔官网声明,引用审稿人要求引用的论文,可能要被撤稿了 +11 Zed-jie 2019-09-16 22/1100 2019-09-19 11:17 by littleyellow
[考博] 大连理工大学,机械院,博士考核制,博导联系完了,但是面试怎样准备?求经验分享~ +4 学者学者 2019-09-16 6/300 2019-09-19 11:17 by 学者学者
[版块工场] 【早起签到贴】2019年9月19日(q q 48626260 进群申请:小木虫——您个人ID) +55 8475 2019-09-19 55/2750 2019-09-19 10:30 by 1194270370
[论文投稿] 求推荐mdpi的知识管理类期刊,其他的审稿快的ssci也可。 +3 双鱼座的咸鱼 2019-09-18 4/200 2019-09-19 09:32 by 双鱼座的咸鱼
[考博] 博士面试的ppt做中文还是英文? +4 努力努力LRJ 2019-09-17 7/350 2019-09-19 08:36 by L1490183152
[论文投稿] 发SCI要花钱吗? +17 叫我酱饼就好 2019-09-18 22/1100 2019-09-19 07:53 by 7410sy
[高分子] 橡胶热压有气泡 10+3 941108 2019-09-16 10/500 2019-09-18 18:17 by lxk80hou
[考研] 军科干细胞方向招收2020推免生 +4 东方朔 2019-09-18 9/450 2019-09-18 17:47 by 东方朔
[论文投稿] 投mdpi论文,忘记调格式了,需要撤稿重新投吗 +3 Cocouu 2019-09-17 7/350 2019-09-18 00:35 by Cocouu
[有机交流] 噻吩环上醛基 10+4 北国?? 2019-09-13 14/700 2019-09-17 20:37 by xinxin91730
[硕博家园] 博士退学的同学,怎么找工作呀? +15 抹眼泪玻璃 2019-09-15 17/850 2019-09-17 17:52 by 1580685067
[硕博家园] 刚刚念博士的心情 +35 zsyhzq 2019-09-14 48/2400 2019-09-17 11:31 by 651058948
[版块工场] 【早起签到贴】2019年9月16日(q q 48626260 进群申请:小木虫——您个人ID) +47 8475 2019-09-16 47/2350 2019-09-16 12:34 by hnhbtj
[考博] 四川大学博士考核制 +7 iamliuyuyu 2019-09-14 9/450 2019-09-15 09:44 by iamliuyuyu
信息提示
请填处理意见