Criteria for Review
of IJCC Articles
Research articles are first screened by the Editor-in-Chief to verify
that they demonstrate a scholarship of teaching and learning before
being sent for blind review by two or more members of the Editorial
Advisory Board who will evaluate each manuscript based on the following
1. Clear goals
Does the scholar state the basic purposes of his or her work clearly?
Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?
Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?
2. Adequate preparation
Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the
Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work?
Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the
3. Appropriate methods
Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals?
Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected?
Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing
4. Significant results
Does the scholar achieve the goals?
Does the scholar's work add consequentially to the field?
Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration?
5. Effective presentation
Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to
present his or her work?
Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its
Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?
6. Reflective critique
Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work?
Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her
Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?
Statement of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
The International Journal of Cyber Criminology is committed to the
academic community and the lay world in ensuring ethics in publication
and quality of articles in publication. Plagiarism is strictly condemned
and papers found to be plagiarized will be removed or not published in
the International Journal of Cyber Criminology. While signing the
publication agreement the author(s) have to warrant that the article and
associated materials are original and it does not infringe the copyright
of anyone. Also the authors have to warrant that there was a full
consensus of all the authors and it was neither submitted nor published
Process for IJCC Articles
The review process for research articles follows this procedure:
1. Editor-in-Chief screens research article submission to be sure it
meets the basic criteria for scholarship by being based upon research
questions, methods, evidence, assessment, and conclusions. If the
Editor-in-Chief is convinced that the article may not fit the journal's
objectives it will be desk rejected.
2. If it is suitable, than, the Editor-in-Chief sends the article to the
Managing Editor. Managing Editor takes care of the review process and
sends to Editorial Advisory board members/reviewres.
3. Editorial Advisory Board members read the manuscript and indicate
their assessment of the article on the electronic review form, based
upon the Scholarship Assessed criteria given above and upon the
following Cyber Criminology rubric:
Relevance for IJCC
Does the paper focus sufficiently on a Cyber Criminology question or
Does the paper have a purpose and provide knowledge applicable to the
Cyber Criminology Field?
Does the paper give evidence of significant and ethical Cyber
Are the paper's conclusions valid based upon the evidence systematically
gathered and upon the argumentation provided?
Does the paper provide new knowledge or otherwise advance the field of
Does the paper have originality of approach or questions pursued, or a
unique perspective on familiar approaches or questions?
International Significance & Relevance
Is the paper on a topic that would be of value for an international
Is the paper intellectually accessible for University/college faculty in
various countries and Practitioners of Criminal Justice System?
Does the paper serve to promote international knowledge, conversations
or collaborations about the topic, or about Cyber Criminology in
4. Each reviewer will include on the review form specific and narrative
comments for the author of the submission about its content,
argumentation, research methodologies, data, conclusions, etc. These
comments will be given to the author, without identifying the reviewers
for the purpose of the giving the author feedback on the article,
whether the article is being considered for publication or not.
5. Each Reviewer will give a recommendation about publication of a
manuscript according to the following list of options:
* Accept: no revision needed
* Accept: minor revisions needed
* Major revision needed: suggest revision & resubmission
* Reject (provide reasons in comments)
* Submission topic or methodology not appropriate for IJCC
6. When all reviews have been received by the managing editor, a decision will be
made regarding publication and authors will be contacted by the managing
editor/editor-in-chief. If the reviews
are very different, the editor may ask 1-2 additional Editorial Advisory
Board members to read and evaluate the submission and then, upon receipt
of the additional reviews, a final publication decision will be made by
7. The response time for review of articles will normally be 3 – 6 months.