Mitigation of Black-Box Attacks on Intrusion Detection Systems-Based ML

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision is good to me.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a resubmission so I have looked for strengths and weaknesses in addition to my original comments on the first submission. These are:

Strengths

The key to success in writing this paper is critical thinking. The task of every author of a research article is to convince readers of the correctness of his or her viewpoint, even if it is skewed and this has been achieved. Thus, the only ways to distinguish solid arguments from weak ones are to be a good researcher, have the right tools to pick out facts from fiction, and possess solid critical thinking skills. The strength of this paper is noted on this point. It is worth noting that the main purpose of this critique is to bring up points that determine whether the reviewed article is either correct or incorrect. First of all, in my process of ascertaining the critique of the article, I have considered if the authors are experts is the expert in their field and concluded they are. They are knowledgeable about the topic and are able to convey a main message that is clear. There are more than just general phrases with any specific details.

The sources used by the author are multiple without any logical blindspots and arrives at a clear outcome in his or her work. There are logical fallacies. That include Ad hominem, Slippery Slope, and Correlation vs. Causation without the presence of biased opinions. That is to say the argument is based on evidence rather than the outcomes. There is no evidence that the author overstates the importance of some things due to his or her own beliefs. The authors cited trustworthy sources of information. Just like any other written assignment, a critique paper should be formatted and structured properly and this was done. A standard article consists of four parts: an introduction, summary, critique, and conclusion and this was followed as noted beelow

• ‍Introduction‍

• The core idea of the author.

• A clear thesis that reflects the direction.‍

• Summary‍

• The main idea of the article.

• The main arguments presented in the article.

• The conclusion of the article.‍

• Critique‍

• Express an educated opinion regarding the relevancy, clarity, and accuracy of the sources

• Conclusion‍

• Summary of the key points of the article.

• Finalization of conclusion with comments on the relevancy of the research.

Language plays a vital role in every article, regardless of the field and topic and here the use of such language has been a clear sign of supported fallacies. In considering a checklist

• How is the design of the study? There were no errors.

• How does the piece explain the research methods? Yes

• Was there a control group used for this research? Yes

• Were there any sample size issues? No

• Were there any statistical errors? No

• Is there a way to recreate the experiment in a laboratory setting? yes

• Does the research (or experiment) offer any real impact and/or value in its field of science? Yes

   

A weakness

The article is geared towards a specialist audience and appeals to a specific group of people using language that is only understandable to that audience