Reviewer Guidelines

Nexavium Journal of Cybersecurity and Cyberdefense relies on the expertise and integrity of its reviewers to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published research. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic standards of the journal.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use any part of the manuscript for personal advantage or for any purpose other than the review process.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and professionally. Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based feedback that helps authors improve their work. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.

Human-Based Evaluation

All reviews must be conducted based on the reviewer’s own expertise and judgment. The use of automated tools or artificial intelligence as the sole basis for evaluation is not permitted. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and quality of their review.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if there is any potential conflict of interest, including personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or institutions involved in the manuscript.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editor promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are typically asked to assess the manuscript based on the following aspects:

  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Relevance to cybersecurity and cyber defense
  • Methodological rigor and validity
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Appropriateness of references and literature review

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should report any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or unethical research practices, to the editorial office.

Recommendation

At the end of the review, reviewers are expected to provide a clear recommendation, such as:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final decision, however, rests with the Editors.