Resilience in the Cyberworld: Definitions, Features and Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of this manuscript provide a theoretical review of resilience as applied to computer engineering and computer science. They have compiled a list of articles published between 2012 and 2021 that contain different terms related to this topic.
The manuscript is well written, justified with an extended literature review. I congratulate the authors.
I suggest the authors modify figure 1 so that 2012 is the first year on the left and 2021 is the last year on the right.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Resilience in the Cyber World: Definitions, Features and Models to Future Internet. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper.
Comments:
Point 1: I suggest the authors modify figure 1 so that 2012 is the first year on the left and 2021 is the last year on the right.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We updated the figure according to your suggestion. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is within the scope of the journal. The subject discussed is interesting as well as the results of the review carried out.
It is well written and easy to read. The results obtained are an interesting contribution to the area of knowledge.
However, it would be interesting to make some improvements:
a) The objective of the review is to obtain a synthesis of the state of the art in a field. In this sense, the article lacks a grouping of the concepts / ideas obtained that are related. In presenting this synthesis, you should indicate on which references they are based. Therefore I suggest rewriting section 4 of the article.
b) I miss a discussion section where the contribution of the work done is established and compared with other similar works. I suggest adding this section to the article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Resilience in the Cyber World: Definitions, Features and Models to Future Internet. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect your suggestions provided by you. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Comments:
Point 1: The objective of the review is to obtain a synthesis of the state of the art in a field. In this sense, the article lacks a grouping of the concepts / ideas obtained that are related. In presenting this synthesis, you should indicate on which references they are based. Therefore I suggest rewriting section 4 of the article.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. We have, accordingly, modified Section 4 to emphasize this point. According to your suggestion, we have divided Section 4 into two Sections, i.e.:
- Section 4: Model of key actions and
- Section 5: Discussion
In the introduction of section 5 we have referred to tables 2 and 3, in which the publications considered in this manuscript are put in relation to the 5 key actions.
Point 2: I miss a discussion section where the contribution of the work done is established and compared with other similar works. I suggest adding this section to the article.
Response 2: We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript. After the division of section 4, you will find in section 5 a discussion part in which we discuss the already known model of key actions and its modification introduced by.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper attempts to investigate how researchers utilised the term cyber resilience and shared a definition. However, for a review paper of this type, it was expected that the study incorporates a systematic literature review protocol, but this was not the case. The number of studies analyses is limited with several figures adopted from published research. The proposed definition of resilience seems to be a rephrase of existing definitions. Overall, there is very limited contribution in this work, limited use of research methods (e.g. review was not systematic), and the conclusions were not compared to similar work for evaluation purposes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Resilience in the Cyber World: Definitions, Features and Models to Future Internet. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper.
Comments:
Point 1: However, for a review paper of this type, it was expected that the study incorporates a systematic literature review protocol, but this was not the case. The number of studies analyses is limited with several figures adopted from published research.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have added a subsection (1.1 Publications) in our manuscript. In this subsection, we again explicitly justify why we selected these publications. In this way, we hope to better clarify why we made this choice
Point 2: The proposed definition of resilience seems to be a rephrase of existing definitions.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have slightly adjusted our definition to better clarify our intent for a definition of cyber resilience. Further, our definition of resilience differs from other definitions in that we refer specifically to CPS(oS). We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
See attached PDF file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Dear Reviewer 4,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Resilience in the Cyber World: Definitions, Features and Models to Future Internet. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for their insightful comments on our paper.
Comments:
Point 1: Motivation is well discussed in the introduction, but what the paper would like to achieve is not well articulated. I have to revisit the introduction after reading the whole article to reflect on the objectives and contributions of the paper. It is worth making these standouts more.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have been able to incorporate change to reflect your suggestion provided by you. We have emphasized the intent of our manuscript more clearly. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Point 2: At the end of Section 2, the reviewed definition is not very well summarized and synthesised. What were the key issues? The discussion leading to the table (which is very powerful) wasn’t made very clear. In fact, this whole section gradually becomes dry and difficult to follow due to the number of definitions reviewed. If possible, it is worth to embed some structure to allow read to reflect in stages.
Response 2: We agree with this comment. We have, accordingly, modified Section 2 to emphasize this point. According to your suggestion, we have better emphasized the intent of Section 2 as well as summarized this section in more detail. Section 2 provides an overview of definitions from selected publications. These definitions result in the creation of the key actions table. By making appropriate changes in Section 2, this should now be clearer. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Point 3: In Section 3, I am personally do not like the table at the beginning as the features just introduce a set of new terms which themselves could have different definitions defined by different organisations and in different domains. I don t seem to see its value and the absoluteness in doing so and how it leads to the modelling part.
Response 3: We thank you very much for this comment and absolutely agree that section 3 needs to be extensively adjusted. For this reason, we have completely restructured section 3. We have described the key actions already presented and we have briefly defined the extracted attributes to better clarify our point.
Finally, we have related the key actions and the attributes. Section 3 should now fit much better into the manuscript and contribute to its meaningfulness.
Point 4: Some contents in Section 5 are very interesting. The figure below 556 (no figure caption and numbering) is particularly powerful. However, I think it can benefit from giving some concrete real-world examples, for instance, what would be a well-known system that fell into category 1 fault-tolerant, etc.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. First, we would like to communicate that Figure 9 (below line 556) has a caption, but it was shifted. We apologize for this.
In accordance with your comment, we have added examples of the different types of systems (Figure 9). We absolutely agree that examples here greatly increase understanding.
Point 5:
- Typos need to be thoroughly identified and corrected, e.g. line 374/375, missing brackets.
- The pdf file also inherited some track changes, e.g. line 368
Response 5: We thank you for this note. According to your note we have checked the mentioned errors and corrected them if necessary.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for attending my suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted in current form
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments are very well addressed. The article is now much more readable than its previous version. This would be very useful review article for the community. Thank the authors for the efforts, and I am looking forward to see the published version.
