ISSN 2636-9680 | eISSN 2682-9266





Abstracted and indexed in:








The OIC-CERT Journal of Cyber Security (OIC-CERT JCS) is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Manuscripts are accepted based on the understanding that the authors have not violated any unethical practice in the preparation of the manuscripts. Authors should prepare their manuscripts submitted to the journal exactly according to the instructions to authors provided. Manuscripts which do not follow the format and style of the journal may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected. The journal reserves the right to make any further formal changes and language corrections necessary in a manuscript accepted for publication.


Allegation of misconduct

In instances where a reviewer/editor finds any practice that may affect the reliability of the manuscript in terms of findings, conclusions or attributions, the editor/reviewer will review and resolve the matter in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief.

The reviewer/editor will:

  1. gather readily available information in order document his/her concerns clearly.
  2. contact the author/authors suspected of misconduct, describe his/her concern and ask for explanation.
  3. suspend the peer review process until the issue is resolved in cases occurring before publication.
  4. contact the author’s(s’) institution(s) and request an investigation if no satisfactory response is forthcoming from the author.


If the reviewer/editor/Editor-in-Chief has clear evidence that a publication is unreliable (ideally confirmed by an institutional investigation), they will consider a retraction (or correction if only a small part of the work is affected). If there are unconfirmed but strong suspicions, the Editor-in-Chief will consider publishing an expression of concern.

Ethical responsibilities of authors

Authors should not misrepresent research results which could damage the reputation the journal, the professionalism of research authorship, and ultimately the entire research endeavour. Authors should ensure that:

  1. The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
  2. The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language, either partially or in full, unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. Authors should provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling (self-plagiarism).
  3. A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time
  4. Results are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
  5. Methods are described clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
  6. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (plagiarism). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given, including material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased; quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material; and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.

Ethical responsibilities of reviewers


  1. should disclose any competing interest before agreeing to review a submission.
  2. may refuse to review any submission due to a conflict of interest or inadequate knowledge.
  3. review all submissions objectively, fairly and professionally.
  4. reveal any ethical misconduct encountered while reviewing to the Editor-in-Chief for further action.
  5. should ensure the originality of a submission and be alert to any plagiarism and redundant publication.
  6. should refrain from discussing the content of the submission without permission.
  7. should adhere to the time allocated for the review process. Any requests for extension to review the submission are at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.


Ethical Responsibilities of the Editorial Board / Editors

The Editorial Board / Editors:

  1. are accountable and responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published guided by the journal editorial policy and and constrained by legal requirements
  2. shall evaluate manuscripts based on the content irrespective of race, religion, gender, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  3. shall not disclose any information relating to a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, or other members of the Editorial Board, as appropriate.
  4. shall treat privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review as confidential and not use them for personal advantage.


Authorship and contributorship

Name of authors listed in a paper should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the report. Only those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the work must be acknowledged or listed as contributors. It is the duty of the corresponding author to ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper.  All co-authors must approve the final version of the paper and agree to the version of the paper before submission.

Complaints and appeals

The below procedure applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in first instance be handled by the Editor-in-Chief responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper (Handling Editor). If they are the subject of the complaint, please approach the Chair of the OIC-CERT Board.

Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor shall consider the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether:

  1. The decision to reject should stand;
  2. Another independent opinion is required; or
  3. The appeal should be considered.


The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final.

Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review

The Editor-in-Chief together with the Handling Editor, where appropriate, shall investigate the matter. The complainant shall be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor shall decide on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Chair of the OIC-CERT Board.


Conflict of interest

A statement on conflict of interest must be included in the manuscript if authors receive any support that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.


Intellectual property

Authors are expected to ensure the accuracy of their papers. The publisher accepts no responsibility for statements made by authors in written papers.  Where relevant, authors are to ensure that the contents of their papers are cleared for publication by, for example, their employer, their client, the funding organization, and/or the copyright owner of any material which is reproduced.  Authors retain the copyright of their papers.


Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error. This may be a correction or retraction. The retraction note should provide transparency which parts of the article are impacted by the error.


Peer Review Process

Each paper is first reviewed by the Editorial Board and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent to two referees appointed by the Editorial Board for double blind peer review. Decisions regarding the publication of a manuscript will be based on the Board's recommendations. Manuscripts submitted by members of the journal's Editorial Board are subjected to the same review procedure.