Privacy preserving data sharing method for social media platforms

Snehlata Yadav; Namita Tiwari

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280182

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 25, 2022
19 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Pandi Vijayakumar, Editor PONE-D-22-18072Privacy Preserving data sharing method for social media platforms.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yadav, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Pandi Vijayakumar, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)” 3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 6. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information which you refer to in your text. Additional Editor Comments: Based on the comments of the reviewers, I recommend this paper for major revision. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Privacy Preserving data sharing method for social media platforms is discussed in this paper. This paper has not clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field. Indeed, I found the paper a little bit difficult to read, due not only to the poor grammar used throughout, but also the unclear structure of the argument being put across. In particular, the quality of the presentation should be improved in this paper. This paper would be substantially improved by thoroughly rewriting the prose with the help of a good English-language writer. In general, this paper needs such a treatment before being considered any further. Furthermore, presentation aside, by reading the paper, it still was not entirely clear what to expect with the direction of the article. Indeed, the contribution proposed in this paper should properly be compared and contextualized with respect to state of the art. The aspects mentioned above should be carefully addressed before the paper can be considered any further. Please consider the following remarks to improve your article: Explain the novelty of your work presented in this work. Paper needs to polish and provide a detailed explanation of theoretical aspects such as conditions and theorems, and practical issues like algorithms, rules and possible applications. The Introduction section needs to be re-written to improve its quality and readability. Improve the quality of figures and explain those properly. Following are some relevant and recent references which may be explored to improve overall quality of the revised paper: Recurrent neural network (RNN) to analyse mental behaviour in social media, Multiple features based approach for automatic fake news detection on social networks using deep learning, Detecting compromised social network accounts using deep learning for behavior and text analyses, A status property classifier of social media user's personality for customer-oriented intelligent marketing systems: intelligent-based marketing activities, Named Entity Recognition for Code Mixed Social Media Sentences, Research synthesis and thematic analysis of twitter through bibliometric analysis, Secure Timestamp-Based Mutual Authentication Protocol for IoT Devices Using RFID Tags, A novel spatio-temporal access control model for online social networks and visual verification, Blockchain-assisted secure fine-grained searchable encryption for a cloud-based healthcare cyber-physical system, Secure and Energy Efficient-Based E-Health Care Framework for Green Internet of Things, IoT transaction processing through cooperative concurrency control on fog–cloud computing environment, Many references are with incomplete bibliographic information (like lack of publication venue, for instance). This must be corrected There are many English and grammatical issues in the paper which need to be rectified. The formula character format is best to be different from the main text, and mathematical characters are recommended. In the related works, "et al" should be "et al.". It seems that the contribution points of the article are a little bit few. After or in the section of Motivation, it is recommended that the authors summarize the contribution points of their work, which clearly demonstrate the innovations. Reviewer #2: The authors have developed a new scheme for privacy preserving for data sharing to be used in healthcare applications. The following concerns must be addressed before final publication.The comments are attached as a separate file ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 18702.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280182.r001
Revision 1
9 Nov 2022 Author Response PLOS ONE RESPONSE SHEET Reviewer #1: Privacy preserving data sharing method for social media platforms is discussed in this paper. This paper has not clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field. Indeed, I found the paper a little bit difficult to read, due not only to the poor grammar used throughout, but also the unclear structure of the argument being put across. In particular, the quality of the presentation should be improved in this paper. This paper would be substantially improved by thoroughly rewriting the prose with the help of a good English-language writer. In general, this paper needs such a treatment before being considered any further. Furthermore, presentation aside, by reading the paper, it still was not entirely clear what to expect with the direction of the article. Indeed, the contribution proposed in this paper should properly be compared and contextualized with respect to state of the art. The aspects mentioned above should be carefully addressed before the paper can be considered any further. Please consider the following remarks to improve your article: 1. Explain the novelty of your work presented in this work. Paper needs to polish and provide a detailed explanation of theoretical aspects such as conditions and theorems, and practical issues like algorithms, rules and possible applications. Response: We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. As suggested in comment we have rewritten the motivation section to explain the novelty of the scheme. We have performed multiple proofreads and removed all the grammatical and typographical mistakes from the manuscript. 2. The Introduction section needs to be re-written to improve its quality and readability. Response: Thank you for the comment. As per your suggestion we have rewritten the introduction section. 3. Improve the quality of figures and explain those properly. Response: Thank you for the comment. As per your suggestion we have Improve the quality of figures and explain them. 4. Following are some relevant and recent references which may be explored to improve overall quality of the revised paper: a. Recurrent neural network (RNN) to analyse mental behaviour in social media. b. Multiple features based approach for automatic fake news detection on social networks using deep learning. c. Detecting compromised social network accounts using deep learning for behavior and text analyses. d. A status property classifier of social media user's personality for customer-oriented intelligent marketing systems: intelligent-based marketing activities. e. Named Entity Recognition for Code Mixed Social Media Sentences. f. Research synthesis and thematic analysis of twitter through bibliometric analysis. g. Secure Timestamp-Based Mutual Authentication Protocol for IoT Devices Using RFID Tags. h. A novel spatio-temporal access control model for online social networks and visual verification. i. Blockchain-assisted secure fine-grained searchable encryption for a cloud-based healthcare cyber-physical system. j. Secure and Energy Efficient-Based E-Health Care Framework for Green Internet of Things. k. IoT transaction processing through cooperative concurrency control on fog–cloud computing environment Response: Thank you for the comment. As per your suggestion we have cites these important research papers in our manuscript. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Reviewer #2: The authors have developed a new scheme for privacy preserving for data sharing to be used in healthcare applications. The following concerns must be addressed before final publication. 1. Introduction section must be strengthened exhibiting the scope and the motivations for developing the proposed system. Response: Thank you for the comment. As suggested in comment we have revised the Introduction section to strengthen the scope of the proposed system. 2. The objectives of the proposed system are not defined clearly. Response: Thanks for the comment. As suggested in comment we have defined the objectives of the proposed system. 3. Literature survey section must be extended. Some of the important manuscripts related to privacy preserving are not discussed. The titles of the related manuscripts are given below: a) Computationally efficient privacy preserving anonymous mutual and batch authentication schemes for vehicular ad hoc networks. b) Computationally efficient privacy preserving authentication and key distribution techniques for vehicular ad hoc networks. c) EAAP: Efficient Anonymous Authentication With Conditional Privacy-Preserving Scheme for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. d) CPAV: Computationally Efficient Privacy Preserving Anonymous Authentication Scheme for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. e) Review: Privacy-Preservation in the Context of Natural Language Processing. f) A secure and efficient authentication and data sharing scheme for Internet of Things based on blockchain. g) Security and Privacy-Preserving Challenges of e-Health Solutions in Cloud Computing. h) MGPV: A novel and efficient scheme for secure data sharing among mobile users in the public cloud. Response: Thank you for the comment. As suggested in comment we have extended the literature survey section and cited all these (from a-h) important papers in our manuscript. 4. The equations must be numbered that are used throughout the manuscript. Response: Thank you for the comment. As suggested in comment we have equations are numbered. 5. Table 2 is not visible completely. Response: Thank you for the comment. As suggested in comment, now, Table 2 is completely visible. 6. Some graphical analysis during the comparative analysis must be shown for easy understanding. Response: Thank you for the comment. As suggested the comparative analysis is done. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE reviewer_2_comment compliance report.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280182.r002
22 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Pandi Vijayakumar, Editor Privacy preserving data sharing method for social media platforms. PONE-D-22-18072R1 Dear Dr. Yadav, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Pandi Vijayakumar, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Privacy preserving data sharing method for social media platforms is presented in this paper. Paper is revised well and it can be considered for the publications. Moreover, a language check is recommended. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280182.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Pandi Vijayakumar, Editor PONE-D-22-18072R1 Privacy preserving data sharing method for social media platforms Dear Dr. Yadav: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Pandi Vijayakumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280182.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .