Peer Review Policy

The Computer Fraud and Security Journal (CFS) is committed to ensuring the integrity and quality of the research we publish through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines the procedures and principles guiding our peer review system to maintain high standards of scientific excellence.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Review:

  • Confidentiality: CFS employs a double-blind review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This helps to prevent any potential bias and ensures a fair evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Objectivity: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are expected to evaluate manuscripts impartially, focusing solely on the quality and relevance of the research.

2. Submission and Initial Screening
Manuscript Submission:

  • Online Submission System: Authors submit their manuscripts through our online submission system, where they undergo an initial screening by the editorial team.
  • Initial Assessment: The editorial team assesses the manuscript for adherence to journal guidelines, relevance to the journal’s scope, and basic quality standards.

Editorial Decision:

  • Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope or quality criteria may be rejected at this stage without further review. Authors will receive feedback explaining the decision.

3. Reviewer Selection
Expert Reviewers:

  • Selection Criteria: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the field relevant to the manuscript. We strive to select reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors.
  • Invitation: Potential reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript. They are provided with a detailed description of their responsibilities and the manuscript’s requirements.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep the content of the manuscript confidential and not use any information from the manuscript for personal advantage.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the stipulated time frame. If unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office promptly.

4. Review Process
Review Criteria:

  • Relevance: Assess the relevance of the research to the journal’s scope and its contribution to the field.
  • Originality: Evaluate the originality of the work and its novelty compared to existing literature.
  • Methodology: Critique the robustness and appropriateness of the research methodology and techniques used.
  • Results and Interpretation: Review the clarity, validity, and significance of the results and their interpretation.
  • Writing Quality: Assess the clarity, organization, and overall quality of writing.

Review Feedback:

  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts. Specific comments and suggestions should be detailed and objective.
  • Recommendations: Reviewers recommend acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript based on their evaluation.

5. Decision Making
Editorial Review:

  • Decision Making: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision on the manuscript. Possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
  • Communication: Authors receive a decision letter detailing the review comments and recommendations. If revisions are requested, authors must address the feedback and resubmit their revised manuscript.

Revised Manuscripts:

  • Reevaluation: Revised manuscripts are often sent back to the original reviewers for reevaluation. Additional rounds of review may be conducted if necessary.

6. Appeals and Resubmissions
Appeals:

  • Appeal Process: Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe there has been a procedural error or significant oversight. Appeals should be submitted with a detailed explanation and any additional evidence.
  • Reevaluation: Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board, and decisions may be reconsidered or confirmed.

Resubmissions:

  • Revised Manuscripts: Authors resubmitting revised manuscripts should include a detailed response to reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript will be evaluated to ensure that all feedback has been adequately addressed.

7. Ethical Considerations
Conflict of Interest:

  • Disclosure: Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest. Manuscripts with potential conflicts are handled with additional scrutiny to ensure impartiality.
  • Transparency: The peer review process is conducted with transparency to uphold the integrity of the research.

Misconduct:

  • Plagiarism: Suspected plagiarism or ethical misconduct is investigated thoroughly. Authors may be required to provide evidence of originality and ethical compliance.
  • Corrections and Retractions: In cases of identified misconduct after publication, appropriate actions, including corrections or retractions, will be taken.