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戲嗎，以及哪些是棘手問題，需要慎重考慮回復(fù)的。 返回小木蟲查看更多