Advanced Security Framework for Internet of Things (IoT)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript makes a systematic literature review in the field of IoT security. The novelty of contributions is not obvious. There are too many grammatical errors and informal writing styles.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article, the authors analyzed around 260 articles and 54 reports. Moreover, they have performed analysis using MAXQDA, where nodes and themes are identified. The model is proposed as a security framework in IoT. The findings of this study recommended that to keep secure the IoT the proposed security framework should be adopted.
The paper is well organized and the presentation of the work is good.
However, I have the following concerns which are necessary to be considered in the revision to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
Comments:
- Some more recent and relevant papers could be cited to support the literature review part of the paper.
- Further clarification on the future work is needed.
- The quality of the Figs. 7 to 16 is not good. The Figures’ captions also need revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a secure framework called SLR for IoT devices and performs various experiments. The paper can be good material for submission and publication if the following issues are fixed:
- Overall command of English and proof-read the article and correct all sentence formation and grammar errors.
- Identify unique aspects of the paper and clearly highlight them
- Explain the concepts briefly instead of verbose.
- Move all experiments to the appendix section.
Line 34: Can you please correct the statement?
Line 37-40: Statement can be rephrased?
Line 168: rephrase the line
If the content can be shortened? Too much text, and description for each topic.
Overall language has to be checked with some spell checks or word which checks for sentence correction and meaning.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are still too many grammatical errors and informal writing styles, including but not limited to the following. This is not acceptable in the second round of review especially after the authors have committed to carefully check the manuscript. The authors are advised to have a native English speaker or professional editing service scrutinize the writing of the paper.
- Line 152, "it helps the researcher to ...".
- Line 172, "Many well reputable journals such as;".
- There is no content for Section 3.3.4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Minor comments:
- Formatting issues on figures, align the figures properly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
