Peer Review Process Policy

Peer Review Process Policy for Al-Noor Journal for Information Technology and Cybersecurity

1. Introduction Al-Noor Journal for Information Technology and Cybersecurity is committed to publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed articles that contribute to the field of information technology and cybersecurity. Our peer review process is designed to ensure that all submitted manuscripts meet rigorous academic standards, and that they are evaluated impartially by experts in the field.

2. Scope of Peer Review The peer review process applies to all submitted manuscripts, including original research articles, review articles, technical reports, and case studies. Manuscripts will be evaluated on their originality, scientific merit, relevance to the field of information technology and cybersecurity, clarity of writing, and contribution to advancing knowledge.

3. Editorial Team The editorial team, comprising of the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editors, and Section Editors, is responsible for overseeing the peer review process. They ensure that the manuscripts undergo a thorough and unbiased review, adhering to the journal's ethical guidelines and quality standards.

4. Submission and Initial Assessment Upon submission, the manuscript will undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal’s scope and meets basic quality standards (e.g., language, formatting, etc.). If the manuscript meets these requirements, it will be sent for peer review. If not, it may be rejected at this stage.

5. Selection of Reviewers The editorial team will select independent reviewers with expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, research experience, and track record in the field of information technology and cybersecurity. Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review Al-Noor Journal follows a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. This ensures impartiality and prevents biases in the review process.

7. Reviewer's Responsibilities Reviewers are expected to:

   • Evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, scientific rigor, clarity, and relevance.
   • Provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the manuscript.
   • Maintain confidentiality about the manuscript's content and not use any information from the manuscript for personal gain.
   • Declare any conflicts of interest or bias that could affect their evaluation.

8. Reviewer's Report Reviewers will submit a detailed report assessing the manuscript, including:

   • An overall recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
   • Specific comments on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.
   • Suggestions for improving the manuscript, including recommendations on content, structure, and clarity.

9. Author’s Responsibilities Authors are expected to:

   • Submit original, unpublished work that has not been simultaneously submitted to other journals.
   • Respond to reviewer comments and suggestions in a constructive manner.
   • Revise the manuscript based on peer reviewer feedback and resubmit it within the specified timeframe.
   • Provide proper citations for all sources used and disclose any conflicts of interest.

10. Decision Making Based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, the editorial team will make a decision regarding the manuscript:

    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is.
    • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions, which the authors should address within a specific time frame.
    • Major Revision: The manuscript requires significant revisions, and authors must address reviewer comments thoroughly before resubmitting.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

11. Final Decision and Publication After revisions, the manuscript may go through another round of review, or the editorial team may make a final decision based on the revisions provided. Once accepted, the manuscript will be scheduled for publication in the next available issue of the journal.

12. Timeliness The journal strives to complete the peer review process within 4–6 weeks from the submission date. Delays may occur depending on the availability of suitable reviewers or the complexity of the manuscript.

13. Ethical Considerations All participants in the peer review process, including editors, reviewers, and authors, are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards. Any potential issues of plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or research misconduct will be dealt with according to the journal’s ethical guidelines.

14. Appeals Process Authors may appeal a decision made by the editorial team if they believe the review process was unfair or biased. The appeal must be submitted in writing, along with a detailed explanation, to the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial team will review the appeal and provide a final decision.

15. Confidentiality All manuscripts and related communication are confidential during the peer review process. Manuscripts are not shared with anyone other than the editorial team and selected reviewers. Reviewers must also keep the contents of the manuscript confidential.

16. Conclusion The peer review process is a critical aspect of ensuring the scientific integrity and quality of the research published in Al-Noor Journal for Information Technology and Cybersecurity. The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards in the peer review process to contribute valuable knowledge to the field.