Next Article in Journal
DNA Nanodevices as Mechanical Probes of Protein Structure and Function
Next Article in Special Issue
Sisyfos: A Modular and Extendable Open Malware Analysis Platform
Previous Article in Journal
An Innovative Approach to Accuracy of Co-Seismic Surface Displacement Detection Using Satellite GNSS Technology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cyber Ranges and TestBeds for Education, Training, and Research
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Post Quantum Cryptographic Keys Generated with Physical Unclonable Functions

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(6), 2801; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062801
by Bertrand Cambou *, Michael Gowanlock, Bahattin Yildiz, Dina Ghanaimiandoab, Kaitlyn Lee, Stefan Nelson, Christopher Philabaum, Alyssa Stenberg and Jordan Wright
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(6), 2801; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062801
Submission received: 13 February 2021 / Revised: 7 March 2021 / Accepted: 18 March 2021 / Published: 21 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cyber Security of Critical Infrastructures)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction can be significantly improved. The introduction of the paper structure can be condensed and the novel contributions of the paper should be articulated.

The quality of figures should be improved, resized, and made self-explainable to ease understanding.

The authors have illustrated the proposed approach without much justification. It is important to relate the proposed techniques to previous studies and provide sufficient motivation before going ahead to give details of the techniques.

The paper is generally hard to read. It is more like a user manual like documentation rather than a scholarly paper. Authors should put sufficient discussion and insights into it.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your feedback. Our response is enclosed in the following pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made a good work, but some points need to be clarified in order the manuscript to get more scientific outlook:

  1. On manuscripts’ title should be written at the end (PUF)
  2. The description of simulation scenario is very poor, and more details need to be provided
  3. The simulation platform that has been chosen by the authors has not been thoroughly justified. The authors should provide an array that provide pros and cons of all available simulation platforms.
  4. There are no KPIs (Key Performance Indexes) on this scenario as well as there no comparisons to other approaches.
  5. On “Conclusion and future work” section the authors need to provide information regarding their contribution to real world
  6. Figures 11 and 12 should be presented in a better way as it is difficult to distinguish the results when is printed in black and white.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. Our step-by-step response is enclosed in the following pdf file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop