---
tags: 研究
robots: noindex, nofollow
---

IJNM 査読コメント
===

## 要約
- 1-1
- 手法をアルゴリズム形式でかくなり数式で書くなりしろ
- kNNのパフォーマンスと比較評価しろ
- [1][5][15][16][17]にURLがない．[4][9][10][11][12][13]にカンファレンス情報がない．ここらへんをもっとしっかりチェックしろ

- 1-2
- 2.3章にリファレンスがない
- kNNと比較評価しろ

- 1-3
- apnomsのときの論文との差異をかけ
- SRの処理手順について詳しくかけ
- Packet-Inの異常増加検出手法について詳しくかけ

---

## Response to Reviewer 1
### Point 1:
The method part shall be presented formally. Currently, each sub-method of the proposed mechanism is described in the form of rough steps. This reviewer suggests that they shall be written in formal mathematical algorithm format and more complete details in each step should be illustrated. Then, it would be more like a rigorous journal article.

### Response 1:
As you mentioned, our manuscript was lacking in details about the Spectral Residual method and the method for detecting anomalous increase in Packet-In messages.
Therefore, We have added a more detailed description of the SR method using mathematical formulas (p.6 LL111 - 120), and algorithmic form about the anomaly increase detection method (p.7 Algorithm 1).

### Point 2:
In the previous version of this paper, a K-NN detection method is used. As an extension paper, a complete comparison shall be provided in the evaluation part. So, both performance results of the polling method and the previous method with K-NN detection shall be provided in the Evaluation Section and be compared with the proposed method.

### Response 2:
Our manuscript lacked a comparison in terms of evaluation with the APNOMS2020 submission. Therefore, we have conducted new experiments and added the results as Experiments 2 and 3 (p.9 - 11).
In Experiment 2 of Chapter 4.4 (p.9 LL197 - 208, Figure 12), we compared the CPU overhead of the Spectral Residual (SR) used in this paper with that of the kNN used in APNOMS2020 submission.
Also, in Chapter 4.5 (p.11 LL209 - p.12 LL224, Table 6), we evaluated the detection performance of SR and kNN.

### Point 3:
The reference information is incomplete. The authors shall thoroughly check this part and fix the problem. For example, links are missing in references [1][5][15][16][17] and the source conference information is not provided for references [4][9][10][11][12][13].

### Response 3:
As you mentioned, there were problems with the reference.
Therefore, we have checked for references and included links and conference information.
Thank you very much for your careful review.

## Response to Reviewer 2
### Point 1:
There are no references to chapter 2.3. Please add a reference.

### Response 1:
As you mentioned, the references were insufficient. Therefore, in Chapter 2.3 (p.3 LL59 - LL77), we have added references to previous studies and a sentence about the study we conducted when we submitted APNOMS2020.

### Point 2:
There is no performance comparison with previous studies in Chapter 4. Analysis is needed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and the existing methods.

### Response 2:
We have added a comparison evaluation with the method we submitted in APNOMS2020.
We have conducted new experiments and added the results as Experiments 2 and 3 (p.9-11).
In Experiment 2 of Chapter 4.4 (p.9 LL197 - 208, Figure 12), we compared the CPU overhead of the Spectral Residual (SR) used in this paper with that of the kNN used in APNOMS2020 submission.
Also, in Chapter 4.5 (p.11 LL209 - p.12 LL224, Table 6), we evaluated the detection performance of SR and kNN.

## Response to Reviewer 3
### Point 1:
I think it would be helpful to briefly describe how the newly proposed method differentiates from the prior study [11].

### Response 1:
As you mentioned, There was a lack of description of the differences with our previous studies [11].
Therefore, we have added the issues from our previous research in the related research in Chapter 2.3 (p.3 LL69 - LL77).

### Point 2:
I think it would be interesting if the authors describe in details the followings:
(I) The four steps of the used Spectral Residual method.
(II) The used procedure to detect anomalous increases in packet-in messages.

### Response 2:
(I) In chapter 3.3 (p.6 LL111 - 120), we have added a more detailed description of Spectral Residual using mathematical formulas instead of abstract itemizations.
(II) Similarly, the method for detecting an increase in the number of Packet-In messages in Chapter 3.4 has been described in more detail in the form of an algorithm (p.7 Algorithm 1).

---
Decision Letter
---

17-Jan-2021

Dear Mr Ono,

Manuscript ID NEM-20-0309 entitled "A Proposal of Port Scan Detection Method Based on Packet-In Messages in OpenFlow Networks and Its Evaluation" which you submitted to International Journal of Network Management, has been reviewed. The comments of the referee(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

The referee(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the referee(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Center. Log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nem and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions".

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referee(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript.

If your article is of potential interest to the general public (which means it must be timely, groundbreaking, interesting and impact on everyday society), then please e-mail [e-mail] explaining the public interest side of the research. Wiley will then investigate the potential for undertaking a global press campaign on the article.

Wiley Editing Services Available to All Authors
Should you be interested, Wiley Editing Services offers expert help with manuscript, language, and format editing, along with other article preparation services. You can learn more about this service option at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/preparation. You can also check out Wiley’s collection of free article preparation resources for general guidance about writing and preparing your manuscript at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/prepresources.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to International Journal of Network Management. I look forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,

Dr Seung-Joon Seok
International Journal of Network Management
[e-mail]

Referee(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewing: 1

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Comments:
1.The method part shall be presented formally. Currently, each sub-method of the proposed mechanism is described in the form of rough steps. This reviewer suggests that they shall be written in formal mathematical algorithm format and more complete details in each step should be illustrated. Then, it would be more like a rigorous journal article.
2.In the previous version of this paper, a K-NN detection method is used. As an extension paper, a complete comparison shall be provided in the evaluation part. So, both performance results of the polling method and the previous method with K-NN detection shall be provided in the Evaluation Section and be compared with the proposed method.
3. The reference information is incomplete. The authors shall thoroughly check this part and fix the problem. For example, links are missing in references [1][5][15][16][17] and the source conference information is not provided for references [4][9][10][11][12][13].

Additional Questions:
Do you want to get credit for reviewing this manuscript on Publons? [<a href='https://publons.com/in/wiley/' target='new'>what’s this?</a>]
Publons provides verified credit for peer review without compromising your anonymity or infringing upon journal policies. By selecting “yes” you are opting in to the Publons service and data about this review (including your name and the review itself) will be transferred to Publons. The content of the review will not be publicly displayed, and only the year of the review and the journal title will be shown on your profile. You may opt-out of the service at any time.: No

Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?: Yes

Is the problem significant and concisely stated?: Yes

Are the experimental and/or theoretical methods described comprehensively?: Yes

Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?: Yes

Is the summary (abstract) concise?: Yes

Literature citation is adequate: Yes

Is the language acceptable?: Yes

Are the results of practical value?: Yes

Length of article is: Satisfactory

Number of figures is: Satisfactory

Number of tables: Satisfactory

Reviewing: 2

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Comments:
- There are no references to chapter 2.3. Please add a reference.
- There is no performance comparison with previous studies in Chapter 4. Analysis is needed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and the existing methods.

Additional Questions:
Do you want to get credit for reviewing this manuscript on Publons? [<a href='https://publons.com/in/wiley/' target='new'>what’s this?</a>]
Publons provides verified credit for peer review without compromising your anonymity or infringing upon journal policies. By selecting “yes” you are opting in to the Publons service and data about this review (including your name and the review itself) will be transferred to Publons. The content of the review will not be publicly displayed, and only the year of the review and the journal title will be shown on your profile. You may opt-out of the service at any time.: Yes

Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?: Yes

Is the problem significant and concisely stated?: Yes

Are the experimental and/or theoretical methods described comprehensively?: Yes

Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?: Yes

Is the summary (abstract) concise?: Yes

Literature citation is adequate: Yes

Is the language acceptable?: Yes

Are the results of practical value?: Yes

Length of article is: Satisfactory

Number of figures is: Satisfactory

Number of tables: Satisfactory

Reviewing: 3

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Comments:
In general, the paper is well written and well organized.

I think it would be helpful to briefly describe how the newly proposed method differentiates from the prior study [11].

I found the evaluations given in Section 4 to be thorough and interesting.

I think it would be interesting if the authors describe in details the followings:
(I) The four steps of the used Spectral Residual method.
(II) The used procedure to detect anomalous increases in packet-in messages.

Additional Questions:
Do you want to get credit for reviewing this manuscript on Publons? [<a href='https://publons.com/in/wiley/' target='new'>what’s this?</a>]
Publons provides verified credit for peer review without compromising your anonymity or infringing upon journal policies. By selecting “yes” you are opting in to the Publons service and data about this review (including your name and the review itself) will be transferred to Publons. The content of the review will not be publicly displayed, and only the year of the review and the journal title will be shown on your profile. You may opt-out of the service at any time.: Yes

Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?: Yes

Is the problem significant and concisely stated?: Yes

Are the experimental and/or theoretical methods described comprehensively?: Yes

Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?: Yes

Is the summary (abstract) concise?: Yes

Literature citation is adequate: Yes

Is the language acceptable?: Yes

Are the results of practical value?: Yes

Length of article is: Satisfactory

Number of figures is: Satisfactory

Number of tables: Satisfactory