Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the Information Protection journal undergo a multi-stage editorial assessment and independent peer review process:
-at the first stage, the editorial office conducts an initial screening of the manuscript to assess its compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, editorial policies, and principles of publication ethics;
- at the second stage, the manuscript is screened for plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and other violations of academic integrity using specialized plagiarism detection software;
- at the third stage, the manuscript undergoes a Double-Blind Peer Review process. During peer review, neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. All communication between authors and reviewers is conducted exclusively through the editorial office.
1. Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board or independent experts possessing relevant academic qualifications and research experience in the field of information security.
2. The Editor-in-Chief and the Executive Secretary select reviewers based on the manuscript's subject area, the reviewers’ scientific expertise, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
3. Before accepting a manuscript for review, reviewers must disclose to the editorial office any circumstances that may affect their impartiality, including professional, academic, financial, personal, or institutional relationships with the authors or organizations associated with the research.
4. In the event of an actual or potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must decline the review assignment.
5. Authors of a manuscript may not participate in the selection of reviewers, evaluation of the manuscript, or editorial decision-making concerning their own submissions
6. If the author of a manuscript is the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, the Executive Secretary, or an employee of the founding institution, such person shall be completely excluded from all editorial procedures related to the manuscript.
In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief (or the Editorial Board, if the Editor-in-Chief is the author) appoints a Handling Editor who has no conflict of interest with the author. The Handling Editor is responsible for selecting reviewers, managing the peer review process, and submitting recommendations to the Editorial Board. The author shall not have access to the reviewers’ reports until the completion of the review process and shall not participate in discussions concerning their own manuscript.
7. Upon completion of the review process, reviewers submit written reports using the journal’s approved review form. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, acceptance after revision, re-review following major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.
8. Reviewer reports are advisory in nature. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board based on the peer review reports, the scientific merit of the work, its relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with the journal’s editorial policies.
9. If revisions are required, the author receives the reviewers’ comments and is given a specified period to submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a response to the reviewers’ comments.
10. If substantial concerns are raised by the reviewers or significant discrepancies exist between reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial office may initiate an additional independent review.
11. In the event of rejection, the author receives a reasoned editorial decision outlining the principal grounds for rejection.
12. Authors have the right to submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision or reviewers’ conclusions within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision.
13 An appeal must contain substantiated arguments addressing the reviewers’ comments and, where appropriate, supporting evidence.
14. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Handling Editor who was not involved in the original review process. Following consideration of the appeal, the editorial office may uphold the original decision, initiate an additional independent review, or revise the editorial decision.
15. Decisions made following the appeal process are final.
16. All stages of editorial assessment, peer review, appeal procedures, and editorial decision-making are documented within the journal’s editorial management system and retained by the editorial office in accordance with its internal record-keeping procedures.
