Digital Communication Forensics in 6G and beyond Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a study under the title “ Digital Communication Forensics in 6G and Beyond Networks”. The applied methodology is sound. Also, the study looks good. Nonetheless, some issues need to be addressed.
Issues, and weaknesses:
1. Abstract and conclusion parts should be revised carefully with a quantitative report with numbers and parameters improvement.
2. The Abstracts must contain at least 150 words up to 250 words and consist of 2-3 sentences as a brief intro about the paper, 2-3 sentences to describe how the problem is solved, and 2-4 sentences showing the results of experiments/simulation ended with 1-2 sentences as short main conclusions of the work.
3. The Introduction section must explain the background of the problem and the urgency of the study, which can be proved by providing some previous research and works, and also how to solve the problem in brief.
4. The introduction is adequate, well-written, and informative. The introduction is not properly structured. Need a few additional existing problems. Moreover, please include more literature review.
5. The authors must have to include a performance comparison table in which they must have to compare this proposed work with a minimum of 15 previously reported similar types of works from 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
6. Authors need to write their contributions. Please highlight the contributions of this paper.
7. There are some typos and grammar errors in the writing. The manuscript is also not organized well. Please spend time revising the manuscript.
8. All Figures are not clear. Please provide a clear version and correct the format issue. And please add more explanation on the legend so people can understand. Results: The figures generated in the pdf have low resolution. Check the original figures for better resolution in the publication of the manuscript
9. The author's discussion of the latest research in the introduction is not sufficient, and it is recommended to add some new references.
10. In conclusion, the paper is written in a way that is far from clear and the exposition needs extensive revision.
There are some typos and grammar errors in the writing. The manuscript is also not organized well. Please spend time to revise the manuscript.
Author Response
The authors presented a study under the title “ Digital Communication Forensics in 6G and Beyond Networks”. The applied methodology is sound. Also, the study looks good. Nonetheless, some issues need to be addressed.
We are really very very grateful for your kindness and the precious comments. We did our best to address all of them and provide the reply for each one as follows
- The abstract and conclusion parts should be revised carefully with a quantitative report with numbers and parameters improvement.
Author Response: Many thanks for the comment. Based on details literature review, this is the initial architecture that we have proposed.
- The Abstracts must contain at least 150 words up to 250 words and consist of 2-3 sentences as a brief intro about the paper, 2-3 sentences to describe how the problem is solved, and 2-4 sentences showing the results of experiments/simulation ended with 1-2 sentences as short main conclusions of the work.
Author Response: Many thanks for this suggestion. We have address this and updated the abstracts and the conclusions as per your comment.
- The Introduction section must explain the background of the problem and the urgency of the study, which can be proved by providing some previous research and works, and also how to solve the problem in brief.
Author Response: We appreciate your feedback. The introduction section explains the background of the problem in detail with previous research and works also show how will the problem be solved.
- The introduction is adequate, well-written, and informative. The introduction is not properly structured. Need a few additional existing problems. Moreover, please include more literature review.
Author Response: Thank you for motivating comment. We have reorganized and updated the introduction by including more literature review.
- The authors must have to include a performance comparison table in which they must have to compare this proposed work with a minimum of 15 previously reported similar types of works from 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Author Response: Yes, we have included and reviewed similar published research from recent years.
- Authors need to write their contributions. Please highlight the contributions of this paper.
Author Response: Thank you for your comment. The contributions are highlighted in the introduction section. We have written it clearly in bullet form.
- There are some typos and grammar errors in the writing. The manuscript is also not organized well. Please spend time revising the manuscript.
Author Response: Highly appreciate for raising an important point to improve the technical quality of their work and while taking it seriously we all authors go through word by word to remove typos and other mistakes. Furthermore, the manuscript undergoes professional English editing to enhance the quality of our paper.
- All Figures are not clear. Please provide a clear version and correct the format issue. And please add more explanation on the legend so people can understand. Results: The figures generated in the pdf have low resolution. Check the original figures for better resolution in the publication of the manuscript
Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. we have enhanced the quality of the figures and provided a clear vision in the revised version.
- The author's discussion of the latest research in the introduction is not sufficient, and it is recommended to add some new references.
Author Response: Many thanks for your feedback. Based on your recommendation, we have added new references in the introduction section.
- In conclusion, the paper is written in a way that is far from clear and the exposition needs extensive revision.
Author Response: Many thanks for pointing this out. We have updated the conclusion section to address your comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript provides a comprehensive literature analysis of telecommunications networks to identify existing concerns and challenges in conducting digital communications forensics. In result, a digital forensic system for 6G and beyond networks is presented on the basis of the highlighted issues, thereby assessing security incidents and providing justified evidence that explains the footprints of the attackers. However, the visualized comparison and scientific summary are lack in this manuscript, which can not provide clear and impactful guidance for the reader. Therefore, I would like to recommend its publication in Applied Sciences after minor revision. In order to improve the quality of the manuscript, the following comments should be considered and addressed.
1. Introduction: The authors should give the main contribution and novelty of this work different from previous works by others.
2. The cited references can hardly reflect the main publications on which the work is based. Some important relative works should be reviewed or compared (Composites Science and Technology, 2023, 231: 109799).
3. The definition and classification of different type of networks should be carefully considered.
The English language needs a minor revision.
Author Response
The manuscript provides a comprehensive literature analysis of telecommunications networks to identify existing concerns and challenges in conducting digital communications forensics. In result, a digital forensic system for 6G and beyond networks is presented on the basis of the highlighted issues, thereby assessing security incidents and providing justified evidence that explains the footprints of the attackers. However, the visualized comparison and scientific summary are lack in this manuscript, which can not provide clear and impactful guidance for the reader. Therefore, I would like to recommend its publication in Applied Sciences after minor revision. In order to improve the quality of the manuscript, the following comments should be considered and addressed.
Highly thankful for your kind and precious comments. We have addressed all of them and provided the reply for each one as follows
- Introduction: The authors should give the main contribution and novelty of this work different from previous works by others.
Author Response: Thank you for an important suggestion. The main contributions are included in the introduction section and have also explained the difference in front of published literature in the Literature Review section 2.
- The cited references can hardly reflect the main publications on which the work is based. Some important relative works should be reviewed or compared (Composites Science and Technology, 2023, 231: 109799).
Author Response: Yes, we have included and reviewed similar published research from recent years.
- The definition and classification of different type of networks should be carefully considered.
Author Response: Thank you for your comment and we have included the definition and classification in the introduction section.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors studied the digital forensics in the era of 6G. This presentation is quite poor and the structure is missing However, there exists some flaws as follows:
1. The abstract should be reorganized to figure out the background, method, main findings, and implications. Current version is too weak
2. For the introduction, there already exists many researches on 6G. However, the lasting works with in 3 years are missing. Besides, the organization is not well and clear enough.
3. For the literature review, the title of reference does not need to present. Only the contribution and highlight in forensics should be pointed.
4. The author should clarify the contributions more clearly compared with the existing works and the advantages of proposed method.
5. The flow map of the designed system, the author should give some simulation or result. Currently, after section 3, no results are presented, which looks like a review paper.
In this manuscript, the authors studied the digital forensics in the era of 6G. This presentation is quite poor and the structure is missing However, there exists some flaws as follows:
1. The abstract should be reorganized to figure out the background, method, main findings, and implications. Current version is too weak
2. For the introduction, there already exists many researches on 6G. However, the lasting works with in 3 years are missing. Besides, the organization is not well and clear enough.
3. For the literature review, the title of reference does not need to present. Only the contribution and highlight in forensics should be pointed.
4. The author should clarify the contributions more clearly compared with the existing works and the advantages of proposed method.
5. The flow map of the designed system, the author should give some simulation or result. Currently, after section 3, no results are presented, which looks like a review paper.
Author Response
In this manuscript, the authors studied the digital forensics in the era of 6G. This presentation is quite poor and the structure is missing However, there exists some flaws as follows:
First of all, we really want to thank you for your precious time reviewing our work and on top of that giving your precious comments.
We are really sorry for the structure issues in the paper and we did our best to address them according to the flaws that you have highlighted.
- The abstract should be reorganized to figure out the background, method, main findings, and implications. Current version is too weak
Author Response: Many thanks for the comment. Based on your comment we have performed the updates as highlighted in the changes performed document.
- For the introduction, there already exists many researches on 6G. However, the lasting works with in 3 years are missing. Besides, the organization is not well and clear enough.
Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added recent references.
- For the literature review, the title of reference does not need to present. Only the contribution and highlight in forensics should be pointed.
Author Response: Thank you for your comment. we have updated the literature review section based on the suggestion.
- The author should clarify the contributions more clearly compared with the existing works and the advantages of proposed method.
Author Response: Many thanks for pointing this out. We have updated the comparison table and added one more row.
- The flow map of the designed system, the author should give some simulation or result. Currently, after section 3, no results are presented, which looks like a review paper.
Author Response: Many thanks for the comment. Based on the details literature review, in this paper, we have proposed the architecture, and in future work, we mentioned the experimentation and comparison.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I give you my extended remarks and suggestions regarding the article "Digital Communication Forensics in 6G and Beyond Networks".
A few remarks and suggestions:
· This article propose a digital forensic system for 6G and beyond networks on the basis of the highlighted issues, thereby assessing security incidents and providing justified evidence that explains the clear steps followed by attackers,
· The main objectives of this paper:
o study security and privacy trends, visions, applications, requirements, and key ena-bling technologies for 6G telecommunication networks,
o review the related literature and enumerate the current network forensics issues in each technology involved in the 6G network,
o determine the threat landscape and potential solutions for 6G security,
o propose a novel initial idea of digital forensic system for 6G and beyond networks,
· The introduction gives a overview of processed scientific field,
· Also, introduction indicates the area that the researchers detected, and in which they wanted contributed with concrete scientific contributions,
· The model and methodology of scientific research is vaguely defined,
· I see a certain space for improvements in the article in the;
o squeeze table 1. onto one page,
o all terms used with abbreviations must be defined,
o figures 2, 3 and 4 are not mentioned at all and are not explained in the text?!?,
o on page seven it says "Computer forensics is a relatively new field in relation to other forensic sciences", quite a surprising assessment...,
o what is new proposed in chapter three?,
o explain the illustrations, which are quite confusingly made,
o is there a chapter missing in which a new methodology for conducting forensic analysis in 6G systems is presented?,
o of the main objectives of the article, at least 50% were not researched at all, or at least written and stated in the article, especially the part about the new approach, the 6G methodology and so on...,
o discussion chapter is missing,
o significant changes are definitely needed in the article for which the authors had a good idea, but unfortunately it is not well done in this form,
· My assessment is that the article be reconsider after major revision for publication in a journal.
I hope I helped, thank you for your patience.
My concluding opinion is that the article be reconsider after major revision for publication!
Sincerely
Author Response
I give you my extended remarks and suggestions regarding the article "Digital Communication Forensics in 6G and Beyond Networks".
Authors Response: Dear Reviewer, we are very grateful for the precious time that you have given to review our work and are thankful for the outstanding suggestions and comments given to enhance our work.
A few remarks and suggestions:
- This article propose a digital forensic system for 6G and beyond networks on the basis of the highlighted issues, thereby assessing security incidents and providing justified evidence that explains the clear steps followed by attackers,
- The main objectives of this paper:
o study security and privacy trends, visions, applications, requirements, and key ena-bling technologies for 6G telecommunication networks,
o review the related literature and enumerate the current network forensics issues in each technology involved in the 6G network,
o determine the threat landscape and potential solutions for 6G security,
o propose a novel initial idea of digital forensic system for 6G and beyond networks,
- The introduction gives a overview of processed scientific field,
- Also, introduction indicates the area that the researchers detected, and in which they wanted contributed with concrete scientific contributions,
- The model and methodology of scientific research is vaguely defined,
- I see a certain space for improvements in the article in the;
o squeeze table 1. onto one page,
Author Response: We appreciate your feedback. We have addressed this by updating the table and maintaining it according to the format of the journal.
o all terms used with abbreviations must be defined,
Author Response: Thank you for an important point that you have highlighted. We have checked and defined all the abbreviations.
o figures 2, 3 and 4 are not mentioned at all and are not explained in the text?!?,
Author Response: Many thanks for pointing this out. We have updated the right and explained it in the updated version.
o on page seven it says "Computer forensics is a relatively new field in relation to other forensic sciences", quite a surprising assessment...,
Author Response: Many thanks for letting us know. We have updated the sentence in the updated version.
o what is new proposed in chapter three?,
Author Response: Thank you for your comment. The writeup is enhanced to better explain the new idea in chapter 3.
o explain the illustrations, which are quite confusingly made,
Author Response: Thank you for your comment. We have updated the writeup accordingly.
o is there a chapter missing in which a new methodology for conducting forensic analysis in 6G systems is presented?,
Author Response: Thank you for your comment. It is so nice of you for the important issue and according to your comment, we have extended the description.
o of the main objectives of the article, at least 50% were not researched at all, or at least written and stated in the article, especially the part about the new approach, the 6G methodology and so on...,
Author Response: Thank you for your comment. Really appreciate and we have extensively updated most of the sections of the manuscript to address your precious comment.
o discussion chapter is missing,
Author Response: We appreciate your feedback and accordingly we have added a discussion section.
o significant changes are definitely needed in the article for which the authors had a good idea, but unfortunately it is not well done in this form,
Author Response: Many thanks for your comments and we tried our best to update the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No more Comment, Accept in present condition.
Reviewer 3 Report
The quality of current version had been improved. Please further polish the english presentation.
Moderate editing of English language required
