MCGAN: Modified Conditional Generative Adversarial Network (MCGAN) for Class Imbalance Problems in Network Intrusion Detection System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The English language needs heavy improvements. There are a lot of errors in English grammar and punctuation.

Please add clear and precise information on the datasets NSL-KDD, NSL-KDD+, and NSL-KDD+20, which you are using in your work.

Reference [3] does not provide information on the NSL-KDD dataset. Please check the correctness of the references in your paper.

The formatting of the paper needs corrections in relation to the MDPI instructions for authors for manuscript preparation.

Please add your main contributions to the introduction part.

It is not clear what is presented in this paper—a system, technique, or model? Different declarations in the parts of the paper:
"This work introduces a novel network intrusion detection system using modified deep learning techniques to balance the imbalance issue and improve detection accuracy."
"In this work, we introduced a novel learning technique,Modified Conditional Generative Adversarial Network (MCGAN), to handle the class disparity issue, which generates adequate trials for minority classes"
"This paper introduces a novel technique based on a modified conditional generative
adversarial network (MCGAN) to address the class imbalance problem."
"The proposed model has experimented on generic NSL-KDDnetwork datasets." In overall, it must be improved and clearly stated in all of the parts of the paper.

It is not clear why issues regarding NIDS are analyzed in the literature survey part while the methodology part is focused on IDS? This needs improvement.

Correct the equation (2), as it is formatted and included as a picture and not the equation.

All elements in each of the equations must be clearly explained.

The discussion section must be added to this paper.

The aspect of critical analysis must be added to the paper.

The future works can be more detailed in the conclusions.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am very thankful for giving good suggestions for improving my research article. As per your comments, here I am submitting the responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

As I reviewed the manuscript entitled “MCGAN: Modified Conditional Generative Adversarial Network (MCGAN) for Class Imbalance Problems In Network Intrusion Detection System” in detail. In this article, to address the class imbalance problem authors introduce a technique based on a modified conditional generative adversarial network. I found a lot of flaws in the paper that should be fixed to meet the high standard of the Journal as well as the research community The presented work is good. However, some concerns need to be resolved, in the next revision, which is given as follows: 

 

 

Minor revision:

1.      A lot of grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript should be removed, and scientific language needs to be used to meet the higher standard of the journal.  A lot of grammatical, spelling mistakes, and space issues throughout the manuscript.

2.      In the introduction part, need to explain the limitations of the research work significantly/separately?

3.      There is no comparison table in the results and discussion chapter. Results should be compared with the latest publications in this domain.

4.      What is the reason to use a maximum value of k = 10 for k-fold cross-validation?

5.      A reference of the data set is missing.

6.      More latest references should be added that are close to this work, there is not a single reference from 2022.

7.      Significant readability and organization issues such as 5.1 Experimental Settings

8.      What is the parameter to select 20 essential elements among all?

The manuscript should be revised by an English native speaker, for the improvement of the sentence structure and story of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your suggestions for improving my research article. As per your comments, here I am submitting the reseponses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The aspect of critical analysis is quite poor in section 5. It can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for giving me this opportunity for improving my research skills. As per your comments, I revised the manuscript. I attached the responses for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx