Creating Honeypots to Prevent Online Child Exploitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting paper focusing on the recruitment and interaction with naive participants to study cyber-attacks that are not technical in nature, such as online child exploitation. The approach of using honeypots and the experimental methodology adopted by the authors is interesting and promising. As the authors rightly point out, there is a huge gap in the research in this particular area. The problem is motivated and explained well. The paper is easy to read owing to the crisp and clear writing. Examples are provided where necessary.

However, a major gripe with this paper is that it is misleading in what the research accomplishes. This is perhaps not clear due to the lack of detail in Section 4. Throughout the paper, the reader is guided to believe that the paper will tackle the impact of educating users about their misdeeds. But Section 4 only presents results on how many users were recruited in the study and continues to impress on how this is the key contribution of the paper. It is definitely important and necessary to perform a study on the recruitment process for honeypot studies because it is so challenging, but the conclusion comes as a surprise. Only in the last paragraph of Section 3, do the authors mention that their prior work has tackled the educative elements. The authors are requested to make this key modification to the paper either by stating at the outset that recruitment is the focus of this study or by presenting the impact of education within this study cohort. 

Overall, this was a very reader-friendly paper.

Author Response

Thankyou for the positive feedback.

Thanks for making me aware of the ‘Social and contextual taxonomy of cybercrime’ paper – I had not read that previously and have now included it within the paper. I revisited a few elements within the paper that commented on the technical vs non-technical nature and adjusted the wording to align.

I have added in several additional citations where you commented that they were missing. In addition, extra illustrations – screenshots – of the warning messages and the honeypot have been added.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript's topic is interesting! It will be eligible for publication after corrections. So, I commend the authors' efforts.

I recommend a revision, and I offer my suggestions. See the attached file for my recommendations to help you improve your work before publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thankyou for the positive feedback.

Thanks for making me aware of the ‘Social and contextual taxonomy of cybercrime’ paper – I had not read that previously and have now included it within the paper. I revisited a few elements within the paper that commented on the technical vs non-technical nature and adjusted the wording to align.

I have added in several additional citations where you commented that they were missing. In addition, extra illustrations – screenshots – of the warning messages and the honeypot have been added.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments and improved the writing of the paper. The current version of the paper makes the author's contributions clear. 

A minor suggestion - if it is available, it would strengthen the paper significantly if the authors provide a quantitative result showing how effective the warning messages were. Perhaps a statistical test result or a ratio of users who proceeded to view the CEM website might help. 

Overall, this is an interesting paper that pushes the boundary in a very important domain deserving attention from the research community.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has improved following the revision carried out thus far.

However, I believe that the paper would have benefitted more from integrating relevant works on cybercrime classifications, e.g., "the Tripartite Cybercrime Framework." Doing so would also help you expand your research report beyond the current "containers."

 I also understand that sometimes, authors, in general, including myself, miss the opportunity to improve their work from "good" to "better" simply because it is deemed "good enough" quickly to go online - and perhaps they're tired. So, my suggestion as a reviewer is optional at this stage of the publication process!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf