Peer Review Process

General Principles

The Editorial Board of Cybersecurity: Education, Science, Technique is committed to ensuring an objective, impartial, and confidential evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

The editorial assessment process involves determining whether a manuscript falls within the journal’s scope and evaluating its relevance, scientific novelty, methodological rigour, reliability of results, practical significance, strengths, and potential limitations.

Only original research articles that meet the journal’s requirements, present well-substantiated findings, and successfully complete both initial editorial screening and  peer review may be accepted for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted through OJS undergo initial editorial screening before being sent for  peer review.

At this stage, the Editorial Office assesses:

  • the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims, scope, and academic profile;

  • the presence of original research findings;

  • the substantiation of the study’s scientific novelty;

  • compliance with the journal’s template and formatting requirements;

  • the completeness and accuracy of the metadata;

  • the correct entry of information for all authors;

  • compliance with the principles of academic integrity;

  • the overall academic quality and clarity of presentation.

Depending on the nature of the identified deficiencies, a manuscript may be returned to the authors for technical corrections or rejected during the initial editorial screening.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, do not present original research findings, contain substantial methodological deficiencies, or violate the principles of academic integrity will be rejected without being sent for peer review.

Only manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening and meet the journal’s basic requirements are sent for peer review.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review model: the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Before a manuscript is sent for review, the Editorial Office ensures that all identifying information has been removed from the manuscript and its electronic file properties.

Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise in the subject area of the submitted research. When selecting reviewers, the Editorial Office considers their professional qualifications, research experience, and the absence of any conflicts of interest.

Prospective reviewers receive the title and abstract of the manuscript, after which they may accept or decline the review invitation.

If a reviewer has an actual or potential conflict of interest, they must decline the invitation and notify the Editorial Office within two to three days. In such cases, another independent expert will be appointed.

Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose them to third parties, use unpublished findings for personal advantage, or disclose any information obtained during the peer-review process.

3. Review Timeframe

The indicative timeframe for completing a review is up to 14 calendar days from the date on which the reviewer accepts the assignment.

However, due to the high volume of submissions received by the Editorial Office, the peer-review process may, in some cases, take longer than 14 calendar days. The duration of the review depends on the subject matter of the manuscript, the availability of suitably qualified reviewers, the complexity of the research, and the need for additional expert assessment.

The overall editorial processing time may also increase because of the time required to identify and appoint reviewers, revise the manuscript, or conduct an additional round of peer review.

The Editorial Office makes every effort to ensure that manuscripts are assessed thoroughly and promptly and kindly asks authors for their understanding regarding possible extensions to the review period.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

During the peer-review process, reviewers assess:

  • the relevance of the research problem;

  • the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;

  • the clarity of the research aim and objectives;

  • the substantiation of the study’s scientific novelty;

  • the appropriateness of the methods, models, algorithms, or experimental methodology employed;

  • the reliability and reproducibility of the results;

  • the adequacy of the quantitative or qualitative evaluation;

  • the comparison of the findings with recent research and existing solutions;

  • the logical structure and coherence of the manuscript;

  • the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the results;

  • the scientific and practical significance of the research;

  • the quality, relevance, and accuracy of the references;

  • compliance with the principles of academic integrity.

Following the assessment, each reviewer completes the standardised Reviewer’s Report Form and may, where appropriate, provide a separate file containing comments, recommendations, or suggested revisions.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, the reviewer selects one of the following recommendations:

  • accept without changes — the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements and may be recommended for publication;

  • accept after revision — the manuscript may be recommended for publication after the authors have adequately addressed the reviewer’s comments;

  • resubmit for review — the manuscript requires substantial revision and an additional round of peer review;

  • recommend submission to another journal — the subject matter of the manuscript is better suited to the scope of another publication;

  • reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, or editorial requirements;

  • recommendation provided in the reviewer’s comments — where the reviewer’s conclusion requires additional explanation and does not fully correspond to any of the options listed above.

A reviewer’s recommendation is an important component of the editorial decision but does not automatically determine whether a manuscript will be accepted or rejected.

6. Revision and Further Review

After the peer-review process has been completed, the editorial decision, reviewers’ comments, and recommendations for revision are communicated to the corresponding author through OJS.

The authors must:

  • carefully address all comments received;

  • make the necessary changes to the manuscript;

  • prepare a reasoned, point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments;

  • upload the revised manuscript and accompanying materials to OJS within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.

If the authors disagree with a particular comment, they should provide a clear and scientifically reasoned explanation of their position.

Where substantial revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other independent experts. The reviewers assess whether their comments have been adequately addressed and provide an updated recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

If the authors do not submit a revised manuscript within the specified period and do not inform the Editorial Office of the reason for the delay, the submission may be removed from active editorial consideration.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration:

  • the results of the initial editorial screening;

  • the reports and recommendations of the independent reviewers;

  • the quality and completeness of the authors’ revisions;

  • the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s aims, scope, and requirements;

  • compliance with the principles of academic integrity.

In complex or disputed cases, the decision may be referred to a meeting of the Editorial Board.

If both reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, or if substantial academic or ethical violations are identified during the assessment, the Editorial Office will send a written notification to the corresponding author through OJS.

Successful completion of the initial editorial screening and referral of a manuscript for peer review do not guarantee its acceptance for publication.

8. Appeal Procedure

Authors who disagree with particular reviewer comments or an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal.

Appeals should be submitted through OJS or sent to the journal’s official email address and must present the authors’ position in the following format:

“Reviewer’s comment — author’s response and justification.”

The Editorial Office will consider the appeal and, depending on its content, may:

  • forward the authors’ explanation to the reviewer for reconsideration;

  • appoint an additional independent expert;

  • refer the matter to the Editorial Board.

If two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations — one recommending acceptance and the other rejection — the Editorial Office will assess both reports and may appoint a third independent reviewer.

The final decision following consideration of an appeal is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board.