Data-Driven Surveillance of Internet Usage Using a Polynomial Profile Monitoring Scheme
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As shown in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Some minor corrections as shown in the attached file.
Author Response
Please find the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
please see the attachment
Author Response
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper " Data-driven surveillance of internet usage using a polynomial profile monitoring scheme " presents a study on surveillance of internet usage using a polynomial profile monitoring. The paper describes the proposed design, presents results. While the paper has potential, the authors should address several concerns and suggestions before the paper can be accepted. The authors should respond to all comments and revise the paper accordingly. Once the revisions are made, the paper can be considered for acceptance.
1. Introduction: The introduction provides a good overview in the area of profile monitoring. However, it lacks a clear statement of the objectives and contributions of the paper. The authors should clearly define the specific goal and outline how it addresses the existing technical bottlenecks.
2. Methodology: The methodology section lacks sufficient details to understand the design and simulation. The authors should describe the design principlesand the simulation tools used. Including relevant equations, diagrams, or figures would greatly enhance the clarity of the methodology section.
3. Results and Discussion: The results and discussion section should provide a more comprehensive analysis of the obtained results. The current description is too brief and lacks specific details. The authors should thoroughly explain the findings, discussing the performance of the proposed monitoring framework compared to existing ones. Additionally, the authors should discuss any limitations or potential trade-offs associated with the proposed design.
4. Clarity and Organization: The paper lacks proper organization, making it difficult to follow the flow of information. The authors should restructure the paper by dividing it into clearly defined sections such as Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Each section should address specific aspects of the research and provide a logical progression of information. This will greatly improve the readability and comprehension of the paper.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion section should summarize the main findings and contributions of the paper. It should also address any limitations or future directions for improvement. The authors should revise the conclusion to provide a clear and concise study summary.
6. Abstract : the authors should summarize the main results in this part.
7. Keywords: No more than five, (the authors have included 7).
Author Response
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All my concerns are well done!
