An Adaptive Cybersecurity Training Framework for the Education of Social Media Users at Work
, Marco A. Palomino 1,*, Matthew J. Craven 1, Maria Papadaki 2 and Steven Furnell 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- I could not find any novality in this proposed model , Its a survey paper , based on the survey author proposing their model , which is not sufficient.
- No any suggestion or recommendation are being given by the author.
- The methodology pf the paper is week .
- Need more literature review and model to be proposed must be a mathamatical model , currently no such mechanism proposed.
- I would suggest author to add more contents , revised methodology and propose some concrete model.
Its acceptable.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Add a table to compare your work with existing works in terms of pros, cons, results etc.
2. Line no. 48 needs paraphrasing: "Our framework makes the following contributions:
• A framework to develop cybersecurity training that is adaptable to the needs and preferences of different employees within the organization.
• A single and simple online guide to social media policies and best security practices for organizations.
• Compliance reports based on the risk levels of the employees to support mitigation strategies." This is grammatically incorrect.
3. Add a small section of Research Gap and then map your novel contributions to the identified gap.
4. In section 3, explicitly mention which of the four steps is novel in your framework and what was your conceptualization behind reaching that fourth step. This is a very important task for your manuscript.
5. In section 3, please specify your mitigation strategies for survey biases.
6. Add details of your training. What training was used and was it customized to the background of the survey repondents or not. If so, how did you design the traning.
There are grammar errors at various places in the manuscript, proof reading the manuscript is required.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction must be expanded to provide sufficient background information.
Please revise the description of the structure of the article in the introduction.
More critical analysis of related work is required to provide a comprehensive review of the existing approaches in the literature.
The explanation of the case studies is limited. What were the tested case studies?
The discussion section does not describe and show the achieved results in depth. It's therefore difficult to comment on the superiority of this proposed framework compared to other existing frameworks.
A proof reading is required.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author has incorporated the comments , however lanugage editing still required , revise the manuscript according to the language standards
Revise the english of this manuscript
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments have been addressed properly and the paper has been revised accordingly.
A proof-reading is required.
