What reviewers evaluate
Reviews should focus on the quality of scholarship, rather than an author’s institution or reputation. Address originality, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, significance, and alignment with the journal’s applied cybersecurity remit.
Originality & fit
Is the research question important and the contribution clearly situated in existing work?
Methods & claims
Are the design, data, analysis, results, and limitations sufficiently supported?
Ethics & safety
Are security, privacy, research permissions, and disclosure practices appropriate?
Applied value
Will the findings inform practice, policy, teaching, or future scholarship?
Confidentiality & impartiality
Keep manuscripts and review correspondence confidential. Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Do not attempt to identify authors; do not share confidential submissions with collaborators or third-party generative AI tools without explicit authorization.
Constructive review reports
Offer a brief overall assessment followed by prioritized major and minor comments. Distinguish methodological concerns from optional improvements, be specific about evidence, and write with professional courtesy. Provide a confidential editor-only note if there is an integrity or responsible-disclosure concern.
Interested in reviewing?
Researchers with applicable scholarly or professional expertise may express interest through the editorial office. Contact does not constitute appointment or guarantee future review invitations.