> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper?
This paper seems interesting since its aim is to examine the specific characteristics of online degrees for sale in a deeper and more constructive manner.
> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?
The paper did not give a concrete method for automatically detecting phony diploma mill agency. The conclusion of the paper states that the faultiest forgery activities in which unofficial email caused the most vulnerable factor to this study. This statement is not surprised since it is already awarded by almost everyone.
> *** Detailed comments: Please indicate any detail comment or suggestion that should be made to the paper if accepted.
Authors should clearly explain data source of Table 1. How is frequency value computed?
Authors should explain in detail of metadata categories shown in Table 2.
Authors did not present the criteria of determining phony diploma mill agency sites from data of table 1, 2 and 3.
The paper refers too many documents presented in web sites. Authors should cites more proceeding or joural papers.
> *** Relevance to the conference: Rate the relevance of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (4)
> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Questionable work with severe flaws. (1)
> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper. Minor variations on a well investigated subject. (2)
> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Substantial revision work is needed. (2)