Forensic Analysis of TikTok Alternatives on Android and iOS Devices: Byte, Dubsmash, and Triller

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the article is presented very clearly.  However, the question arises as to why the authors chose this journal in particular. A journal focused on digital forensics would probably be more appropriate. However, the article fits the current issue - at least mostly. The results are of special interest to forensic practitioners and Law Enforcement Agencies.  

Some minor formal things:

- Displaced path information (pp. 11 -14)

- Missing Reference for NIST [? ] on page 5 line 233.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment for the responses.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Author need to mention the clearly contribution.

2. lack of existing work review , consider the recently work.

3. figure 2 need more detail explanation.

4.Privacy Concerns section need more detail explanation

Author Response

Please see the attachment for the responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The authors proposed a good model which was claimed to be help for forensic analysis of alternative TikTok. However, many good and recent models are missing. 

Also, the environmental setting is not clear to support the claim and show the superiority of the proposed analysis.

Though Related Works section mentions some articles stating the present situation, the section does not end finding a gap in technology. Logically pointing out the gap would lead to motivation of the proposed work.

Authors should discuss the recent references in the context of the proposed work.

 

The results should be further analyzed, more details and further discussion of the comparison is needed. 

• The conclusions section should conclude that you have achieved from the study, contributions of the study to academics and practices, and recommendations of future works.

 

• The list of references should be reformatted and checked again to be matched with the journal requirement where different styles and types are used. Please proofread and check some spells and typos.

 

I encourage them for resubmission and major revision. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment for responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments are well addresses.

Reviewer 3 Report

More analysis and novelty is needed to justify the paper. My previous concerns are still standing out.