PREreview estructurada del Cognitive Security: The study and practice of protecting the human mind and other Cognitive Assets from cognitive threats

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

it seems "Machine Psychology" is exaggerated. it usually happens just because of expertise of authors. the article is trying to be well comprehensive but the claims should be more humble.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

the authors demonstrate very high structural clarity in discussing but interpretation is often overconfident and their articulation of next steps is disappointingly vague.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

considering the: lack of systematic review in chapter 2 approximately no practical evidence to use of their model shortage of weighing the aspect of final model yes it promote the knowledge

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

it needs a little polish it is colored norwegian just for a little

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.