Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Machine Learning Research in Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence (IJMLRCAI) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review. All research articles, reviews, and technical papers submitted to the journal undergo rigorous peer review to ensure the integrity, quality, and significance of the research published. This policy outlines the procedures and principles guiding the peer review process at IJMLRCAI.

2. Types of Peer Review

IJMLRCAI employs a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. This policy helps ensure impartiality and eliminates bias.

3. Submission and Initial Screening

3.1. Submission: Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. All submissions must comply with the journal’s guidelines regarding formatting, length, and subject matter.

3.2. Initial Screening: The editorial team conducts an initial screening of all submissions to ensure they meet the basic requirements of the journal. Manuscripts that do not comply with these requirements or are deemed out of scope are desk-rejected.

4. Reviewer Selection

4.1. Selection Criteria: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and prior publications in relevant fields of machine learning, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence.

4.2. Invitation to Review: Potential reviewers are invited via email to review a manuscript. They are provided with the title, abstract, and keywords of the manuscript to ascertain their suitability and availability to review the paper.

5. Review Process

5.1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential. They must not share or discuss the manuscript with others outside the review process.

5.2. Review Timeline: Reviewers are typically given 3-4 weeks to complete their reviews. Extensions may be granted upon request.

5.3. Review Criteria: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research
  • Technical soundness and rigor
  • Clarity and coherence of the presentation
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Adequacy of references to related work

5.4. Review Report: Reviewers must provide a detailed report with constructive comments and recommendations. They should highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and suggest improvements.

6. Decision Making

6.1. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' reports, the editor-in-chief or handling editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
  • Reject

6.2. Communicating the Decision: The editorial decision, along with the reviewers’ comments, is communicated to the authors. If revisions are required, authors are given a deadline to resubmit their revised manuscript.

7. Revisions and Resubmission

7.1. Revision Submission: Authors must address the reviewers’ comments and make the necessary revisions. A detailed response letter, outlining how each comment was addressed, must accompany the revised manuscript.

7.2. Second Round of Review: Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers if necessary. The same review criteria and procedures apply.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected can appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editor-in-chief, providing a detailed justification for reconsideration. The editor-in-chief will review the appeal and may consult with the original reviewers or additional experts to make a final decision.

9. Ethical Considerations

9.1. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts where such conflicts exist.

9.2. Plagiarism: Manuscripts suspected of containing plagiarism or ethical misconduct will be investigated thoroughly. Appropriate actions, including rejection or retraction, will be taken as per the journal’s ethical guidelines.

10. Reviewer Acknowledgment

Reviewers are acknowledged annually in the journal and may receive certificates of appreciation for their contributions. Outstanding reviewers may also be recognized through awards.

11. Continuous Improvement

IJMLRCAI is committed to continuously improving the peer review process. Feedback from authors and reviewers is regularly solicited and used to refine and enhance the review procedures.