Generation of an EDS Key Based on a Graphic Image of a Subject’s Face Using the RC4 Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The authors should add more details about their final results in the abstract.
2. One paragraph is needed to be added to the introduction to show the main contribution.
3. The author should add a paragraph at the end of the introduction section to describe the paper structure and sections.
4. The introduction is too long. Similar studies and research should not be mentioned in the introduction. A new section must be added after the introduction to show the previous work.
5. I miss a section that outlines the limitations of your method and possibilities of extension. Are there any disadvantages or limits of your approach?
6. Papers contain some of English and Grammatical errors; therefore authors are suggested to take assistance of some professional English writer.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions!

You were right about structure of our paper, and we rewrite it. In the results section we presented our EDS generation method, because it’s important for results. Other tools used are presented in section about "materials and methods".

We compared our EDS generator with suggested in other works because it’s the most important part of the study. Also we added a part with comparing our studies result with the same study.

We hope we were able to correct the shortcomings of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented seems interesting and the results promising.

However, I have two main issues that need to be solved:

1. The paper structure is a little caothic: the tools used are presented in the results section, the methodology is describen in the results section too... A previous section about "materials and methods" need to be included (as recommended by MDPI journals). Moreover, some explanations are not needed (like a set of python's libraries)... In definitive, the full manuscript needs a re-organization.
2. The results are nos compared with other works... This is very important of you want to remark the goodness of your system. Please, include some actual works about this topic, and compare your work with them: seccess, error, latency, time response... Some things are described quickly in the "Discussion" section, but it need a deeper comparison.

Other minor issues include figures that are difficult to be read (like Figure 2); and, in the conclusion, authors indicates that "we will need additional tests to make a final conclusion about the viability of the proposed method."... So, do those tests... If you cannot conclude and discuss correctly your system, those tests are mandatory.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions!

Your suggestions were very helpful to us, therefore we rewrite our paper, and we made next changes:

¾ We added the main result of our study in the abstract.

¾ We added a part with comparing our studies result with the same study.

¾ We add a paragraph at the end of the introduction section to describe the paper structure and sections.

What about a section that outlines the limitations of your method and possibilities of extension. At now we just doing this, we conduct research on the limitations of our system. And in this paper we want to show our method as a possible.

Thank you so much for suggestions again, we used it when we rewrite it paper and we will use it at our next study and writing of paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript ha been improved since the previous version; however, one of the main issues I remarked previously has not been solved:

MDPI journals' templates use this organization: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusions.

You do not use this structure; in fact you mix Results with Methods and Discussions with Conclusions.

As I said before, is a little caothic to get into the results section without describing the methods previously.

Author Response

Good morning!

You are absolutely right about the article template. Unfortunately, we made a mistake with the template, so the structure was changed.

We are sending you a new version of the article with a changed structure. It now meets the requirements. Now the section with materials is located after introduction.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.