Theoretical Bases of Methods of Counteraction to Modern Forms of Information Warfare

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your submission and here are my suggestions:

1. Add a “Review Methodology” subsection (PRISMA-style diagram acceptable for narrative reviews) and a summary table of source coverage.
2. A dedicated subsection “IoT/IIoT threat and mitigation patterns” would improve fit to the section/special issue.
3. A comparison table versus mainstream ML/NLP detectors (advantages/limitations; e.g., robustness to noise, parallelization, determinism, resource footprint) would help.
4. In the section 5.2. Please define “information noise” once and use consistently. Ensure consistent English (US/UK) and hyphenation for terms like “deepfakes,” “botnets,” “multi-layer/multilayer,” etc.
5. In Abstract: add one sentence clarifying review method (databases, years covered). 
6. In the section 6: provide small numerical examples for FGT/RNS to demystify modular processing for practitioners.
7. In the section 7: compress repeated DSA/AI-Act explanations and please move details to a table as well as an appendix.
8. I would also recommend an english polish by reducing sentence length in long overview paragraphs as well as standardise tense and spelling.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

  

Author Response

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions. We are grateful for the detailed feedback, which we believe will undoubtedly help to improve the quality and clarity of our work

 

1. Add a “Review Methodology” subsection (PRISMA-style diagram acceptable for narrative reviews) and a summary table of source coverage.

Added, section 2, highlighted in red

2. A dedicated subsection “IoT/IIoT threat and mitigation patterns” would improve fit to the section/special issue.

Added, section 7, highlighted in red

3. A comparison table versus mainstream ML/NLP detectors (advantages/limitations; e.g., robustness to noise, parallelization, determinism, resource footprint) would help.

Added table 4 at the end of section 8, also an extended table in the appendix

4. In the section 5.2. Please define “information noise” once and use consistently. Ensure consistent English (US/UK) and hyphenation for terms like “deepfakes,” “botnets,” “multi-layer/multilayer,” etc.

The term information noise has indeed multiple connotations across disciplines; in the revised text we have clarified its meaning in our context and applied it consistently throughout

5. In Abstract: add one sentence clarifying review method (databases, years covered). 

Added, highlighted in red

6. In the section 6: provide small numerical examples for FGT/RNS to demystify modular processing for practitioners.

Added at the end of the section (now section 8), highlighted in red

7. In the section 7: compress repeated DSA/AI-Act explanations and please move details to a table as well as an appendix.

Corrected, but examples from other countries were also added to the section, so the total volume became larger, highlighted in blue (now this is section 9)

8. I would also recommend an english polish by reducing sentence length in long overview paragraphs as well as standardise tense and spelling.

Adjusted in the text

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their interesting work. The manuscript presents an ambitious and comprehensive review of Vision Transformer (ViT) models applied to federated learning (FL). The work spans hundreds of references and covers many research papers, datasets, experimental strategies, and model variations. The author demonstrates diligence in collecting and summarising the relevant literature, and the topic is timely and highly relevant to current developments in privacy-preserving deep learning and distributed model training. The structure is logical in its progression from general background to experimental domains and results. The scale of the work and the author’s effort in analysing so many sources are commendable.

However, significant concerns must be addressed to ensure the paper’s scientific quality.

1. The manuscript lacks a clear and formal research methodology. While it is remarkable that the author has processed such a vast amount of literature, it is essential to clearly state the research objective, the scientific problem addressed, and the criteria for selecting both literature sources and the structure of the review (Selection of the Sections 1–7). The choice of subtopics is not explicitly justified, which limits the review process’s transparency and reproducibility. There is no methodology block in the paper, nor are there inclusion/exclusion criteria or a summary table of the selected literature, which would be expected in a scientific review of this scope.

2. The paper requires a systematic summary and synthesis of the reviewed materials. Although the work includes a detailed narrative extending over 470 references, it ends without a comparative analysis of the findings (i.e., the author’s results or typologies). The conclusive section is brief and insufficient to crystallise the review’s scientific novelty or offer coherent recommendations. While essential issues are highlighted throughout the text, the reader is left to independently interpret and connect the pieces, rather than being guided by well-formulated, aggregated insights or a proposed conceptual framework. The lack of systematisation (as an author's results section) and integrative conclusions weakens the contribution as a review article and leaves the novelty and practical value underdeveloped.

Thus, the paper presents an impressive effort and may become a valuable contribution to ViT and FL research. However, it can only be recommended for publication after revisions. These should include the addition of a transparent methodological framework, justification of the review structure and sources, and a structured comparative synthesis.

Author Response

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions. We are grateful for the detailed feedback, which we believe will undoubtedly help to improve the quality and clarity of our work

1. The manuscript lacks a clear and formal research methodology. While it is remarkable that the author has processed such a vast amount of literature, it is essential to clearly state the research objective, the scientific problem addressed, and the criteria for selecting both literature sources and the structure of the review (Selection of the Sections 1–7). The choice of subtopics is not explicitly justified, which limits the review process’s transparency and reproducibility. There is no methodology block in the paper, nor are there inclusion/exclusion criteria or a summary table of the selected literature, which would be expected in a scientific review of this scope.

Added, highlighted in red

2. The paper requires a systematic summary and synthesis of the reviewed materials. Although the work includes a detailed narrative extending over 470 references, it ends without a comparative analysis of the findings (i.e., the author’s results or typologies). The conclusive section is brief and insufficient to crystallise the review’s scientific novelty or offer coherent recommendations. While essential issues are highlighted throughout the text, the reader is left to independently interpret and connect the pieces, rather than being guided by well-formulated, aggregated insights or a proposed conceptual framework. The lack of systematisation (as an author's results section) and integrative conclusions weakens the contribution as a review article and leaves the novelty and practical value underdeveloped.

Added, highlighted in red

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions. We are grateful for the detailed feedback, which we believe will undoubtedly help to improve the quality and clarity of our work

 

1.) Since the survey papers are pretty long, it would be helpful to add tables, charts that convey the information of section consciely. This will very much help readers to take away key points authors wish to convey.

Several tables have been added to the text, highlighted in red

2.) Challenges/dilemmas in implementing the countermeasures for information warfare in different parts of world is essential...though some major parts of the world are covered, Asian continent (East, South East and South Asia) could also be given some focus.

Added in two sections (4.5 and 9.2) highlighted in blue

3.) While elaborating on countermeasures for information warfare a breif table containing some success cases with success percentages reported will be a great encouragement to the readers and enthusiasts who are working int his direction.

Added to the appendix, highlighted in blue

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your revision work and it addressed my concern

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would encourage to have a professional english polish.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the time devoted to our work and for your positive evaluation of our first-round revision. Following your feedback, we conducted an additional language and style pass across the manuscript. All edits are shown in the annotated Microsoft Word file with Track Changes enabled.

In brief, we:

• Performed a full English edit for correctness and clarity; standardized terminology and abbreviations at first mention; removed duplicated wording.

• Harmonized verb tenses (favoring Present Simple where appropriate), improved parallelism, and tightened phrasing.

• Split overly long sentences and simplified complex constructions; where possible, reduced sentence length without altering technical meaning.

• Unified style and punctuation, corrected typos, and aligned key definitions.

• Ensured citation consistency and clarified several transitions to improve readability.

We hope these refinements further strengthen the manuscript and appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded adequately to the major critiques by providing a clear methodological framework, a well-structured literature classification, and more articulated conclusions. However, further improvement is recommended regarding language polish. The paper can be considered for publication after minor revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and professional. However, some long, compound sentences would benefit from a more concise and native formulation. The paper has good potential for future citations, so language proofreading is recommended. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the time devoted to our work and for your positive evaluation of our first-round revision. Following your feedback, we conducted an additional language and style pass across the manuscript. All edits are shown in the annotated Microsoft Word file with Track Changes enabled.

In brief, we:

• Performed a full English edit for correctness and clarity; standardized terminology and abbreviations at first mention; removed duplicated wording.

• Harmonized verb tenses (favoring Present Simple where appropriate), improved parallelism, and tightened phrasing.

• Split overly long sentences and simplified complex constructions; where possible, reduced sentence length without altering technical meaning.

• Unified style and punctuation, corrected typos, and aligned key definitions.

• Ensured citation consistency and clarified several transitions to improve readability.

We hope these refinements further strengthen the manuscript and appreciate your thoughtful comments.