Secure Learning Management System Based on User Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a user authorization scheme for learning management systems. The idea of exploiting several user behavior as key features for user authorization is quite interesting to me, but unfortunately I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication for the following reasons:

1. There are too many grammatical errors and typos, degrading the completeness of the paper.

2. Overall, this paper is poorly written. In particular, Introduction does not present any meaningful information about this paper. Please refer to other well-written papers and see how Introduction is written.

3. I don't really understand what the following equations mean: (1), (2), (9), (10). Please clear up the notations.

4. I think Table 3 and 4 are not necessary. They don't give any useful information. The corresponding results, equation (14) ~ (17), are sufficient.

5. Figure 1 is too big, and in fact I don't think this figure really helps. It is so obvious.

6. It would be better to provide an evaluation result by comparing the proposed scheme with other recent advances.

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for your review. We have taken into account all of your comments, as it follows:

1. We have tried to obtain help to improve the English of the paper from different collaborators.
2. We have presented in the introduction, the structure of chapters of the paper and we highlighted the essential contribution for each chapter.
3. The equations (1), (2), (9) and (10) are actually sets, for that, we have changed in the text the numeration of the equations without them.
4. We have Table 3 and Table 4 in the paper to present the results that represent the base of the calculation for the equations: (14)-(17) or at this moment (10)-(13). We want in this way to present to the reader what information we have used for the calculations.
5. We have changed the figure 1 and we keep it because we consider that the readers should know exactly the process of the recognition of the users. Maybe it is obvious to us that we have experience in the field, but it will not be for all readers.
6. We consider the comparing results realized by Tables 1, 2 – other results and Tales 3, 4 – our results – for this reason, we consider that we have to keep Table 3 and Table 4.

Please see our next version of the paper and we are looking forward for your feedback!

Best regards,

Alin Zamfiroiu

Reviewer 2 Report

The Introduction doesn’t highlight the gap with the existing literature and what the paper aims to contribute. It doesn’t outline the structure of the paper as well and doesn’t prepare enough the reader for the rest of the paper. What do the authors try to do with this work? Where the contribution lies in? Who can use the presented knowledge in the paper?

Is the paper a literature review? What is the methodology used? None of this is explained neither in the abstract, neither in the introduction, and reader only understand's that there has been a study conducted at section 3. 

Line 244: Within this section (not chapter)

Line 377: The research aims.. This list of items that the research aims to deliver may be more appropriate to include in the introduction than in the conclusions

Again the fact that you performed a study of different techniques doesn’t come across neither in the conclusions. My biggest question is, what is your contribution? The overview and detailed description of the techniques or the study results? Or both? These should be clearly outlined and presented as such across the whole paper.

Additionally for who this paper is intended? The technical details about the techniques would be less of interest for practitioners that can implement such  , while maybe the results may be more interesting to focus on

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for your review. We have taken into account all of your comments, as it follows:

1. We have tried to obtain help to improve the English of the paper from different collaborators.
2. We have presented in the introduction, the structure of chapters of the paper and we highlighted the essential contribution for each chapter
3. We present in the introduction the expected results of our research and also, we have presented in the abstract the aims of our research to prepare the reader for the rest of the paper.
4. The methods and the algorithms that are used are presented in chapter 3.
5. On line 244 we have changed the "chapter" word with the "section word".
6. The aims that are presented in the conclusions we have moved in the abstract of the paper, in that way we prepare the reader for the rest of the paper.

Please see our next version of the paper and we are looking forward for your feedback!

Best regards,

Alin Zamfiroiu

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This revised manuscript has been a lot improved than before, but I don't think it is enough for publication. Please refer to the following concerns:

1. The contributions added in the abstract section should be moved on to the introduction section. 
2. Though the authors have enhanced the introduction section, but I still cannot see any remarkable differences. Please clarify the motivation of the paper, a brief review of related works, the proposed idea including how the authors overcome the existing issues and problems, and a summary of the performance evaluation.
3. I know table 3 and 4 and equations 10 to 13 are the evaluation results obtained from experiments by authors, but I cannot clearly see how good those numbers are. For example, the authors just mention that "The results during a working session show that the FAR is 3.57% and the FRR is 8.92%." So what are these numbers meaning? How much good they are? What I meant regarding this in the previous review was that the authors should draw some clear conclusion by comparing their results with those of other related works. For example, most of FAR and FRR of previous works described in table 1 and 2 seem better than those of the proposed scheme. How should we interpret this?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the second feedback! We have addressed your second comments, as it follows:

1. The aims have been moved from the abstract section to the introduction and in the abstract, we have added a new paragraph to explain to who is addressed this paper.

2. At the end of the introduction section we have added the necessity of this research and the way that we have adopted to obtain the algorithms that are presented in the paper.

3. Yes, it is true the False Reject Rate is better in the previous researches due to the small number of sessions. We have interpreted the results and we explained that the results can be improved by increasing the number of the sessions when the algorithm will create the profile of the user. In this way, the profile will be more accurate.

Thank you very much for your support!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract, instead of bullet lists, please use normal inline text and numbering.

The formatting in whole paragraph starting from line 403 is not the same as in the rest of the paper and needs to be improved. 

Now the aim of the paper is clear, what I don't understand and what doesn't come across clear in the paper for who this paper is aimed? For learning management platforms developers? Teachers? Education designer? Some of these groups bot not all?

Please specify this in the corrected version of the paper

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the second feedback! We have addressed your second comments, as it follows:

1. The aims have been moved from the abstract section to the introduction section and we kept with the bullets.

2. We have improved the formatting style of the paragraph from line 403.

3. We have added in the abstract a paragraph to explain to who is addressed this paper. It is addressed both to the teachers and to the learning management platforms developers.

Thank you very much for your support!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx