PREreview of "Intrusion Detection Systems for Cloud and IoT Infrastructures: Comprehensive Review of Challenges, Strategies, and Future Directions"

Abstract

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/23109457. Abstract: The abstract contains wordings that does not clearly described the methodology and the major knowledge gap. A review abstract should preferably follow a structured logic: Background → Objective → Methods → Results/findings → Conclusions. Introduction: The introduction has repetitions on it Literature review and Methods: The manuscript lacks a clearly defined review methodology. The article calls itself a "Comprehensive Review," but there is no adequate description of: databases searched; search dates; search strings; inclusion criteria; exclusion criteria; screening process; number of records identified; duplicate removal; full-text assessment; final number of studies included; quality/risk-of-bias assessment; method used for synthesizing the evidence. Discussion: The review should have a clear description of why cloud/IOT security matters and why convectional IDS approaches are insufficient. General Comment: Please take note of the grammar usage. For a review claiming comprehensiveness, this is a substantial methodological deficiency. The authors should either: A. Convert it into a systematic/scoping review, with an appropriate methodology and reporting framework such as PRISMA 2020 where applicable, or B. Clearly identify it as a narrative review and explain the literature-search and selection approach sufficiently to establish transparency. At present, the word "comprehensive" is not adequately supported by the methodology. The manuscript does not adequately distinguish cloud IDS from IoT IDS The title emphasizes: "Cloud and IoT Infrastructures" but much of the manuscript treats them together without sufficiently explaining their different security and architectural requirements. The authors should develop a stronger comparative analysis. The datasets require much more critical discussion. The manuscript mentions datasets such as: KDD99; NSL-KDD; CSE-CIC-IDS2018; RedIRIS. However, it does not critically discuss their suitability such as the security concepts. A comprehensive review should include a dedicated table containing: Dataset | Year | Environment | Attack types | Number of features | Limitations | Cloud/IoT relevance Tables need improvement: Tables should contain more analytical information rather than merely definitions. In particular, Table 3 should become a major synthesis table. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.