CCrFS: Combine Correlation Features Selection for Detecting Phishing Websites Using Machine Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposal presents a solid research work, which may be of the interest of Future Internet. Despite of this, the following enhancements are suggested prior to acceptation:
1 -The Introduction enumerates some state-of-the-art problems on the targeted research topics. However, this section do not provide insights of how the proposal (which contributions are also enumerated) is expected to outperform previous work on such issues.
2 –The introduction must enumerate the core contributions of the paper
3 –The introduction should describe the organization of the rest of the document
4 -Why Tan's dataset is a suitable options against other OSINT related collections, also seconded by the research community? Please, indicate in the manuscript
5 –Related Works may extend the table towards express the traceability between the proposal and the cited state of the art solutions. Maybe including a new row, and some additional details may be enough
6 - Overall, the paper lacks of scientific soundness. This reviewer suggests to explicitly indicate a research hypothesis and how it is contrasted by the empirical/analytical results. Other supportive inputs may be a brief description of the research objectives, assumptions, limitations, etc.
7 –A new section (for example, Discussions), may Analytically (not empirically) review the proposal highlights and results against the state of the art.
8 -The conclusions may extend the suggestions for future work
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated very much the encouraging, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful to improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript. We are submitting the revised manuscript in response to all the reviewer’s comments attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated very much the encouraging, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful to improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript. We are submitting the revised manuscript in response to all the reviewer’s comments attached
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved.
