You should follow the reviwers instruction word by word and check/edit all the pages if there is any miskes, here is the reviwers comments:
———– Overall evaluation ———– I would like to extend my thanks to the authors for their time and engagement on the manuscript. However, comprehensibility of the text is too poor to understand the authors’ intention and point of view. Furthermore, there are several eristic/contentious perspectives in the study.
The most prominent one is the definition and responsibilities attributed to software engineer, since the mentioned activities or responsibilities are mostly related with the systems engineer and/or IT system management/administration/maintenance not necessarily call for a SE. On the other hand, several academically misleading sentences took place in the text, such that the sentence on page 3, first paragraph, between lines 6-10 “…
When files have been ready for encryption, the user data cannot be able any more to read the data, as well as hackers, if they have got the physical type access of the computer’s data storage because it became safe…” reads as if reading the data is not possible if it is encrypted. However, reading and understanding-the-content/decryption are technically different operations. Additionally the contribution of the study is not clear at all. ———–
Confidential remarks for the program committee ———– The study is significantly poor in comprehensibility and in scientific contribution. Let alone, there are several misleading and wrong perspectives in the text.