Counterattacking Cyber Threats: A Framework for the Future of Cybersecurity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While the topic is very in focus, having in mind digitization of all aspects of the contemporary society, this concept paper is not giving the clear conclusions on how it can contribute in dealing with the growing cybersecurity threats. 

The model has to be supported by hypotheses, as well as sound structure. The current structure of the paradigm is unclear. The connection between different "areas" is loosely described, just on the very superficial level, with some connections completely missing from the description. The model itself is not giving any clear way forward, apart from high-level overview (already existing in the literature), there are no other contributions.

The authors has to improve the paper in the following areas:

- the content structure - has to improved, as it is hard to follow the logical line of the paper

- the paradigm model - has to be presented in structure, not chaotic way, and clearly explained - with clear benefits to the cyber-society,

- While Chapter 3 is presenting the Cyber Resilience Framework, which should be the basis of the paper, and discuss ow this framework is contributing further, seems that following chapter are completely disconnected from the content - up until Chapter 3

- The conclusions are vague and loose - almost non-existent. The paper, even concept paper, has to reach certain conclusions and contributions to the cyber security academic communicty.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. I have made several improvements to the concept paper as follows:

1. Content Structure: I have refined the content structure to make it more coherent and easier to follow. I have ensured a logical flow that connects all sections of the paper.

2. Paradigm Model: I have restructured the paradigm model to be more organized and clear. Each area is now explained in greater detail, and the relationships between the different areas have been articulated more effectively.

3. Hypotheses and Contributions: I have added hypotheses that support the proposed model. Additionally, I have highlighted the expected contributions of this model to addressing the growing cybersecurity threats.

4. Chapter Connections: I have ensured that each chapter has a strong connection to the preceding and succeeding chapters. The chapters following Chapter 3 are now better integrated with the previously introduced Cyber Resilience framework.

5. Stronger Conclusions: I have strengthened the conclusion section by detailing the findings and contributions achieved by this paper. This will provide clearer guidance to the cybersecurity community in facing the existing challenges.

I hope these changes will meet the expectations and feedback provided by the reviewer. If there are any other aspects that need improvement, please let me know so that I can ensure this concept paper meets the desired standards.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article discusses the development of a framework for cybersecurity in the future. However, the title does not fully emphasize the importance of this framework. It is advisable to add emphasis on the development of the framework as a potential solution to address cybersecurity challenges in the future.

There is no background provided. The article has not presented any hypothesis to be proposed, nor has it identified any research gaps obtained from the review of previous research articles that have been studied. It is not evident what will be investigated.

If conducting a review related to the topic of countering cyber threats and developing a framework for future cybersecurity, it is advisable to conduct a literature review on several relevant research studies to determine the objectives of the review. How many research articles will be analyzed, how they will be processed, and what will be achieved from the literature review should be stated. For example, the review may involve comparisons or combinations of previous research studies. The variables or parameters used for validating the review should also be specified.

The conclusion is not provided, so it is unclear what has been achieved in this article.

Some references are not valid, and articles from journals or proceedings are mandatory.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your insights, and I have taken steps to address the concerns you raised:

1. Title Emphasis: I have revised the title to better emphasize the significance of the framework's development as a potential solution for future cybersecurity challenges.

2. Background and Hypotheses: I have incorporated a comprehensive background section that explains the context and importance of the framework. I have also introduced specific hypotheses that will be explored in the article, addressing the gaps identified in previous research.

3. Literature Review: I have included a dedicated section for the literature review. I have clearly stated the objectives of the review, the number of research articles analyzed, the methodology used for processing them, and the intended outcomes of the literature review. Additionally, I have described how previous research studies are being compared and combined to contribute to the development of the framework. The variables and parameters for validation have been specified as well.

4. Conclusion: I have provided a comprehensive conclusion section that summarizes the achievements of the article. This will provide clarity on the outcomes and contributions of the framework.

5. References: I have ensured that all references are valid and have included articles from reputable journals and proceedings as per your requirement.

I believe these revisions will enhance the quality and clarity of the article, addressing the points you raised. If there are any further aspects that require attention, please let me know so that I can make the necessary adjustments. Your feedback is invaluable in improving the article's overall effectiveness.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper gives an examination of the literature on current theories and frameworks for digitalization, cyber resilience, and their linkages to provide a conceptual framework for the future of cybersecurity. It is a conceptual paper where notions and concepts are cited from other papers. The main concern is the contribution and innovation of the paper. It is not clearly presented in the paper about the new elements proposed in the framework which can outperform the existing frameworks. All analysis of the paper is qualitative analysis. It would be nice to conduct some quantitative analysis to make it more convincing. There are duplicate sentences on lines 43 – 46. Figure 2 needs more explanation, and linkages to the elements of the figure.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I've taken your suggestions into account and made the following improvements to the paper:

1. Contribution and Innovation: I have revised the paper to clearly emphasize the unique contribution and innovation of the proposed conceptual framework. I've added sections that highlight the novel elements of the framework and explain how they address the limitations of existing frameworks, leading to potential improvements in cybersecurity strategies.

2. Quantitative Analysis: While the nature of this paper is conceptual, I understand the importance of supporting arguments with evidence. I have included a discussion on the potential avenues for quantitative analysis within the scope of this conceptual framework. This will enhance the persuasiveness of the paper by providing a more comprehensive evaluation of its potential effectiveness.

3. Duplicate Sentences: I have reviewed and rectified the duplicate sentences in the specified lines (43-46) to ensure clarity and coherence in the paper's content.

4. Explanation of Figure 2: I have expanded the explanation of Figure 2 to provide a more detailed description of its elements and their linkages. This will aid readers in understanding the visual representation of the framework.

By implementing these changes, I believe the paper is now better positioned to highlight its contribution, offer more convincing arguments, and enhance the clarity of the framework's depiction. Should you have any additional suggestions or areas that require further attention, please let me know. Your feedback is instrumental in refining the quality of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors significantly improved all points of concern.

Author Response

Thank you for the positive review and feedback from the reviewer. We are delighted that all aspects highlighted by the reviewer have been improved. We are ready to proceed with the revision process if necessary. Thanks again for the attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been revised. However, it is advisable that the use of images is tailored to the needs. Not all sections need to be illustrated uniformly. There is a possibility that images can be combined with other illustrations that support the research findings. Furthermore, it is recommended to reread the entire text, both between paragraphs and sentences, in order to convey the message more clearly and concisely, and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and guidance. We appreciate your review and have taken your suggestions into account during the revision process. We have revised the article as per your recommendations. The use of images has been adjusted to align with the specific needs of each section. We have also considered the possibility of integrating images with other illustrations that enhance the presentation of our research findings. Additionally, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire text, focusing on improving the clarity and conciseness of the message while eliminating any unnecessary repetitions. Your valuable input has undoubtedly contributed to the enhancement of the article's quality, and we are grateful for your continued support and insights.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revision has addressed my concerns.

Author Response

Thank you for the positive review and feedback from the reviewer. We are delighted that all aspects highlighted by the reviewer have been improved. We are ready to proceed with the revision process if necessary. Thanks again for the attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf