Peer Review Policy

Purpose
The purpose of the peer review process at the International Journal of Cyber Threats and Protection is to ensure the highest standards of quality, relevance, and integrity in the research we publish. Our policy is designed to offer a transparent, thorough, and unbiased evaluation of manuscripts, involving experts from relevant cybersecurity fields to ensure the robustness of our published articles.

1. Type of Peer Review
The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This approach minimizes bias, ensuring that the evaluation focuses purely on the quality, originality, and scientific merit of the manuscript rather than the identity or reputation of the author.

2. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript. The Editorial Board maintains a diverse pool of qualified reviewers, including academicians, industry professionals, and recognized experts in the field of cybersecurity and digital protection. We ensure that any conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed to maintain impartiality in the review process.

3. Review Process
Once a manuscript is submitted, it is first evaluated by the Editorial Board to assess its alignment with the journal’s scope and its adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts meeting the basic criteria are then assigned to at least two independent reviewers. These reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the field of cybersecurity, and clarity of presentation. Reviewers are asked to provide detailed comments along with a recommendation for the manuscript’s disposition—whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

4. Duration of Review
The peer review process generally takes between 6 to 8 weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers and the extent of revisions required. Authors will be notified promptly of any delays and will be updated on the status of their manuscript.

5. Decision Process
Based on the feedback provided by the reviewers, the Editorial Board makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. Authors are notified of the decision, along with the reviewers’ comments to guide any necessary revisions. In cases where the reviewers’ recommendations are conflicting, or if the author files an appeal, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer or discussed further by the Editorial Board.

6. Appeals
Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they substantively disagree with the reviewers' evaluations. Appeals must be based on a well-reasoned argument and provide clear justification. The Editorial Board will review the appeal and inform the authors of the final decision.

7. Ethics and Confidentiality
All parties involved in the peer review process are required to adhere to strict ethical guidelines. Manuscripts are considered confidential, and reviewers must not use information from the manuscripts for personal gain. Allegations of misconduct, whether occurring before or after publication, are treated seriously and investigated in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

8. Feedback to Reviewers
Reviewers receive feedback regarding the impact of their evaluations. Constructive guidance is provided to new reviewers to enhance the quality of the review process, ensuring that it remains rigorous and of high academic standard.

9. Continuous Improvement
The peer review process is periodically assessed and refined to ensure that it continues to meet the highest standards of scholarly publishing. We strive for continuous improvement to adapt to the evolving landscape of cybersecurity research and to maintain a fair, effective, and unbiased review process.