Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Cyber Law (IJCL) applies a structured peer review process to assess the scholarly quality, originality, methodological and analytical rigor, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication. The process is designed to ensure that editorial decisions are based on independent scholarly assessment and are not influenced by financial, personal, or other inappropriate considerations.

The peer review process consists of three stages: Initial Editorial Review, Peer Review, and Editorial Decision.

A. Initial Editorial Review

Upon submission, the manuscript is first examined by the Section Editor to determine whether it is suitable for further consideration and complies with the Journal's basic submission requirements.

The Initial Editorial Review considers, as applicable:

  1. Compliance with the Journal’s Instructions for Authors;
  2. Relevance to the Journal’s subject areas and editorial focus;
  3. Adequacy of the manuscript’s title, abstract, keywords, structure, and presentation;
  4. Compliance with the prescribed manuscript format and length requirements;
  5. Completeness and appropriateness of the author and submission information;
  6. Adequacy and relevance of the references and citations;
  7. Apparent originality and absence of substantial inappropriate textual overlap;
  8. Compliance with applicable publication and research requirements; and
  9. The manuscript’s overall suitability for external peer review.

The Section Editor may use appropriate similarity-detection tools as part of the initial assessment. Similarity results are evaluated in accordance with the Journal’s separate Plagiarism Policy and are not treated as an automatic determination of plagiarism solely on the basis of a numerical similarity score.

The Section Editor may request necessary preliminary corrections or reject a manuscript that does not satisfy the Journal’s basic requirements or is clearly unsuitable for peer review. A decision at this stage does not constitute a substantive assessment of the manuscript’s scholarly merits.

Where a manuscript passes the Initial Editorial Review, the Section Editor proceeds to arrange external peer review.

B. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the Initial Editorial Review are assigned to suitably qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter, methodology, legal field, or research area addressed by the manuscript.

IJCL ordinarily seeks assessment from at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript requiring external peer review.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant academic or professional expertise, subject-matter knowledge, and their ability to provide an independent and objective assessment.

The Journal seeks to avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers who have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research under consideration.

C. Peer Review Model and Confidentiality

IJCL applies a double-anonymous peer review process, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process.

Authors should therefore submit the manuscript and author information in accordance with the Journal’s submission requirements so that identifying information can be appropriately separated from the anonymous manuscript.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all information obtained during peer review as confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared, reproduced, discussed with unauthorized persons, or used for personal or professional advantage.

The confidentiality requirements applicable to reviewers are further specified in the Journal’s Reviewer Guidelines.

D. Peer Review Assessment

Reviewers conduct an independent and comprehensive assessment of the manuscript.

The assessment ordinarily considers:

  1. The clarity and adequacy of the abstract;
  2. The research problem, objectives, questions, and significance;
  3. Engagement with relevant and sufficiently current literature;
  4. Originality and scholarly contribution;
  5. Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology or legal research approach;
  6. Quality of the results, findings, or substantive legal and policy analysis;
  7. Coherence and depth of the discussion;
  8. Validity and support of the conclusions;
  9. Accuracy and appropriate use of legal, academic, empirical, and other relevant sources;
  10. Clarity, organization, and scholarly presentation; and
  11. The overall contribution and suitability of the manuscript for publication.

The assessment criteria may vary according to the nature of the manuscript. For example, the evaluation of a doctrinal legal article may differ from that of an empirical or data-based study.

The Journal’s detailed assessment criteria and any applicable numerical scoring system are provided through its designated OJS reviewer assessment form.

Reviewers are expected to provide specific, reasoned, and constructive comments supporting their recommendation. Detailed requirements for reviewers are provided in the separate Reviewer Guidelines.

E. Reviewer Recommendations

Following the assessment, reviewers provide a recommendation to the Editor through the Journal’s designated review system.

The principal recommendations are:

  1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to any final editorial requirements.
  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript may be suitable for publication after limited revisions addressing the reviewers’ identified concerns.
  3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision before a publication decision can be reached. A substantially revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or other appropriate reviewers for further assessment.
  4. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the Journal’s required scholarly, methodological, analytical, originality or publication standards and should not proceed to publication.

A reviewer recommendation is advisory and does not by itself determine the final editorial decision.

F. Revision and Resubmission

Where revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments, explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify changes made to the manuscript where required by the Journal’s submission system.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Where necessary, the Editor may appoint alternative or additional reviewers.

The number of revision rounds is determined by the Editor according to the nature and extent of the revisions required. A request for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

G. Reviewer Disagreement

Where reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Editor may request clarification from the existing reviewers, obtain an additional independent review, or make an editorial decision based on the available assessments and the Editor’s own evaluation.

The Editor is not required to follow a particular reviewer’s recommendation where the overall scholarly assessment supports a different decision.

H. Editorial Decision

Following completion of the peer review process, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Section Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript, and any author responses to determine the appropriate editorial outcome.

The possible outcomes include:

  1. Final Acceptance: The manuscript satisfies the Journal’s requirements and is approved for publication.
  2. Minor Revision: Limited amendments are required before final acceptance.
  3. Major Revision: Substantial amendments are required, and further peer review may be necessary.
  4. Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the Journal’s publication standards or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Journal’s authorized editorial decision-maker and is not determined solely by numerical reviewer scores or by any individual reviewer’s recommendation.

I. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly and editorial merits of the manuscript.

The peer review and editorial decision-making processes are independent of the payment of publication charges. Payment of an APC or any other applicable charge does not guarantee acceptance or publication, and a request for a waiver or discount does not adversely affect the editorial assessment of a manuscript.

J. Peer Review and Publication Integrity

Where a reviewer or Editor identifies a potential concern relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship, or another form of publication misconduct, the matter shall be handled in accordance with the Journal’s separate Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics Policy, as applicable.

The peer review process shall not be used as a substitute for a formal investigation of publication misconduct.

K. Post-Review Editorial Assessment

The Editor may undertake an additional editorial assessment after peer review where necessary to verify that reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed, that the manuscript complies with the Journal’s requirements, and that the conditions for publication have been satisfied.

Where substantial new concerns arise during revision or final editorial assessment, the manuscript may be returned for further review or rejected due to not being suitable for publication.

L. Review Timeline

IJCL aims to process submissions efficiently while maintaining appropriate standards of editorial and peer review.

The time required for peer review may vary depending on the availability of suitably qualified reviewers, the subject matter of the manuscript, the complexity of the research, and the number of revision rounds required.

The Journal does not guarantee a specific peer review or publication timeframe, and doing so could compromise the quality and independence of the review process.

M. Transparency of the Review Process

The Journal maintains appropriate records of submissions, reviewer invitations, review reports, editorial decisions, and author responses through its online journal management system.

The identities of reviewers remain confidential in accordance with the Journal’s double-anonymous peer review model.

 

Effective from: 01 September 2026

Last Updated: 21 August 2026