Guidelines for Reviewers

Purpose

The peer review process is fundamental to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of Journal of Cybersecurity, Digital Forensics, and Jurisprudence (JCDFJ). The Journal operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Peer review ensures that editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, ethical standards, and relevance to the Journal's scope.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they possess appropriate subject expertise, are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe, and have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality. If additional time is required or a conflict of interest arises after accepting the invitation, the reviewer should promptly notify the Editorial Office.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in assisting the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors in making informed editorial decisions. Reviews should be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful, with the aim of improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers should also promptly inform the Editor if they identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or any other concerns relating to research or publication ethics.

Evaluation Criteria

During the peer review process, reviewers are expected to evaluate each manuscript comprehensively and objectively. Their assessment should determine whether the manuscript submission offers an original, meaningful and scholarly contribution to its field. Reviewers should consider the clarity of research objectives, and underlying rationale as well as the suitability and methodological rigor of the research design. They should assess whether the results are presented accurately, interpreted logically, and supported by sufficient evidence, and whether the conclusions are justified by the findings.in addition, reviewers should examine the manuscript engagement with relevant and up-to-date literature, its compliance with ethical standards and the overall quality of its writing, organization and presentation. When providing recommendations reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between revisions (essential changes to meet publication standards) and suggestions(optional recommendations only to improve manuscript quality or presentation).

Review Reports

Review reports should provide balanced, specific, and constructive comments that help both the editors and the authors. Feedback should explain the reasons for recommendations and, where appropriate, suggest practical improvements. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or inappropriate language are unacceptable.

Reviewer recommendations normally fall into one of the following categories:

Accept;
Minor Revision;
Major Revision; or
Reject.

These recommendations are advisory only. The final editorial decision rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor of the manuscript following consideration of all reviewer reports and the Journal's editorial policies.

Confidentiality, Ethics, and Artificial Intelligence

All manuscripts and associated review materials are confidential documents. Reviewers of JCDFJ must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished information without the explicit authorization of the Editor.

Reviewers must not upload, submit, or disclose confidential manuscripts to publicly available or third-party artificial intelligence (AI) systems that may retain or reuse submitted content. AI-assisted tools may be used only for limited language or grammar support, provided manuscript confidentiality is fully protected. Reviewers remain entirely responsible for the accuracy, objectivity, confidentiality, and scholarly judgment expressed in their reports, and AI tools must never replace independent critical evaluation.