| 查看: 3323 | 回复: 8 | |||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者binggan13将赠送您 5 个金币 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[求助]
IEEE ACCESS审稿意见回复求助 已有2人参与
|
|||
|
Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission) Comments: * Language and presentation should be improved. * What is the motivation for the study? Literature has several anomaly & intrusion detection models. Why they are not applicable for the current scenario. As the authors have focused on a specific application, what are the characteristics of the application that demand a new proposal? * Further figures are very generic. Like Fig 1, 2, are already available in literature and Fig 3, 4, 5, 6 to the problem is very generic. Further figure numbering is wrong. authors should take extra care. * Literature has the experiements and analysis with the similar techniques and on the same datasets such as: Intrusion detection model using fusion of chi-square feature selection and multi class SVM, 2017. Integrated intrusion detection model using chi-square feature selection and ensemble of classifiers, 2019. These are few examples. There are several literature dealing with similar techniques * Authors should make a comparison in terms of proposal, experiments and validate the results. Additional Questions: 1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: to some extent 2) Is the paper technically sound?: to some extent 3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: to some extent 4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: no 5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission) Comments: Authors presented a better work entitled, Anomaly Detection and Attack Classification for Train Real-time Ethernet. However, authors are recommended to consider the following points, 1. Abstract requires revision in the last section/part to specify clearly how presented research performing significantly over the existing ones. 3. A few of the figure’s resolutions requires improvement, specially presented in table number 7. 4. Conclusion requires revision, to be more specify about their significant achievements. 5. Provided references are better enough. However, authors are recommended for the following, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04319-2 6. A thorough proofread is required. Additional Questions: 1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes, 2) Is the paper technically sound?: Yes, 3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes, 4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes, provided references are better enough. However, authors need to read the following as well. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04319-2 5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No Reviewer: 3 Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission) Comments: They need to explain why they are using old datasets. The figures starting from figure-9 are not clear at all. Was it necessary to add so many images? 小白第一次投稿，求助各位大佬看看有戏吗，以及哪些是棘手问题，需要慎重考虑回复的。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
复试调剂
已经有4人回复
-
东华理工大学化材专业26届硕士博士申请
已经有4人回复
-
328求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
复试调剂
已经有10人回复
-
焦虑
已经有7人回复
-
一志愿哈工大材料324分求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
267一志愿南京工业大学0817化工求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
304求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
290求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
268求调剂
已经有4人回复
|
祝福 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
3楼2020-12-24 21:42:42
2楼2020-12-24 21:10:33
4楼2020-12-30 09:04:07
5楼2020-12-30 09:04:14
