Three-Dimensional and Multiple Image Encryption Algorithm Using a Fractional-Order Chaotic System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are detailed comments intended to assist the authors in enhancing their research paper. I believe significant structural changes are essential to effectively convey the contents of this work to a broader audience. I hope the authors find these recommendations helpful.

1. ‘analog images.’ Do these cameras capture images on film? I think the security challenges vary significantly because these are not digital images, and I thought a more detailed explanation would be helpful.
2. The paper appeared to have large structural issues. The distinction between section 1 and section 2 is ambiguous. Are sections 2 and 3 supposed to act as the methods section? If that’s the case, the paper appears to lack a defined aim and objectives in section 1. Lines 51 to 59 can be revised for greater clarity to the readers. Additionally, is section 4 intended to represent the results? Establishing a clearer structure in the paper would greatly improve the communication of key information.
3. Line 45. Please avoid using ‘Also, see papers.’ If this part of the paper isn’t crucial, it may be removed.
4. Do the definitions in section 2.1 need equation captions? Strangely, only some equations are labeled, while most are not. If these are not essential for understanding the method, could the authors remove them to simplify this section? This happens in later sections of the paper and is also worth revising.
5. Please evaluate if the results (such as figures 2 to 8) that come before section 4 should be categorized as part of the results or the method. I found these sections difficult to comprehend because it is unclear whether this information is new or intended to inform the method. While most plots are usually well-prepared, the text in certain figures is too small to read. For instance, figures 15 (m) to (p) are unclear, and in many instances, the axis labels seem to be absent.
6. Could the authors specify which correlation coefficient (like Spearman’s or Pearson’s) was used to assess the relationship between the variables? The authors may also wish to benchmark coefficients against thresholds to help interpret the outcome more rigorously.
7. Please relocate figures 20 and 21 from the conclusions section. The authors should consider if there are excessive figures and images in the paper. While I appreciate the careful summaries of many illustrations into larger figures, the total might be too high for effective interpretation. Decreasing the number of illustrations could improve the paper’s clarity.

Author Response

Please see attached file,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some comments , the authors should answer to improve the paper.

1. They said that they can process several images, but did not say how many at once.
2. In the algorithm, what parameters should be changed to affect the pixel change rate in the histogram plot and encryption images?
3. How does the proposed hybrid chaotic system differ from other encryption method used for encryption, for example, “Secure transmission of medical image using a wavelet interval type-2 TSK fuzzy brain-imitated neural network”, and what are its advantages?
4. Could you explain how the wavelet transform contributes to improving the efficiency of the proposed algorithm, especially in terms of reducing computational time?
5. In terms of encryption security, how does the proposed algorithm perform when subjected to noise attacks or data loss simulations?

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all my earlier comments. I have no further suggestions to include.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted.