BChainGuard: A New Framework for Cyberthreats Detection in Blockchain Using Machine Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction section may be improved by adding an objective and problem statement.
The literature section finds some recent research papers in this field. Avoid using the paper beyond the last 10 years.
The proposed framework description and diagram is not matching.
The algorithms can be improved giving more clarity. Add pseudo code if possible.
The result section need to be improve significantly using more details implementation , whole process from selecting data set to uploading in the blockchain network.
How is uploading done?
during uploading is it require validation or not?
Do comparative analysis with existing work.
Security analysis also missing.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for carefully reading our manuscript and for giving such constructive comments, which substantially helped improve the quality of the paper. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have tried to consider all the points that were raised. These have been adopted for the revised version according to the reviewers’ suggestions. The points which needed further discussion are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for accepting the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is good and have industrial relevance. However, there are many changes required before it could be considered in next round of review. This includes:
a. Improve introduction. Include more explicit statements that justify the motivation to undertake this work. Further, also include brief outline of existing frameworks and what extra value does your framework provides. What are contributions of your paper.
b. Elaborate results and include discussion. How does your framework could be validated in real settings and what industrial value does it offer?
c. Improve conclusion section.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for carefully reading our manuscript and for giving such constructive comments, which substantially helped improve the quality of the paper. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have tried to consider all the points that were raised. These have been adopted for the revised version according to the reviewers’ suggestions. The points which needed further discussion are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the efforts to modify your paper. I want to suggest 2 more chnages that are required.
1. Elaborate results.
2. Mention threats to validity.
3. Include paragraph about how your technique has industrial applications (it is briefly mentioned and very implicit but could be better mentioned in last few sections of the paper).
4. Any limitation of the technique?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and for giving such additional and constructive comments. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have tried to consider all the points that were raised.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
