INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
Updated: April 2026
The Cyber Defense Review is an open-access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that serves as a forum for current and emerging research on cyber operations. Its focus is on strategy, operations, tactics, history, ethics, law, and policy in the cyber domain. The Cyber Defense Review positions itself as a leading venue for interdisciplinary work at the intersection of cyber and defense, welcoming contributions from the military, industry, professional, and academic communities.
The journal is committed to publishing original, previously unpublished, and intellectually rigorous research that advances the body of knowledge in this rapidly evolving field. We invite timely and relevant submissions that reflect both theoretical insight and practical application, with the goal of informing cyber-related decision-making, operations, and scholarship. As cyberspace is global, The Cyber Defense Review welcomes and encourages international participation. All submissions must contain unclassified material that is suitable for unrestricted distribution.
Research Article Template (.docx)
Professional Commentary Template (.docx)
SCOPE OF THE JOURNAL
Research areas considered by the journal include (but are not limited to):
- Cyber strategy, doctrine, and military operations
- Cyber conflict, deterrence, and escalation dynamics
- Offensive and defensive cyber capabilities
- Cybersecurity policy and governance
- Cyber law and legal frameworks for conflict and attribution
- Ethics of cyber operations and autonomous systems
- Cyber threat analysis and adversary behavior
- Critical infrastructure protection and resilience
- Emerging technologies in the cyber domain (e.g., AI, quantum computing)
- Human factors and decision-making in cyber operations
- Joint, multi-domain operations, and civil-military operations involving cyber components
- Modeling and simulation of cyber operations
- AI-enabled cyber operations
- Cyber force structure, generation, training, and education
- Historical case studies of cyber conflict or information operations
- Strategic influence, disinformation, and psychological operations
- Lessons learned from exercises, simulations, and wargaming
CONTRIBUTION TYPES
The Cyber Defense Review publishes a range of contribution types to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the cyber defense field. We welcome Research Articles, which present original theoretical, empirical, or conceptual work that advances scholarly understanding of cyber operations, policy, or strategy. We also accept Professional Commentaries, which offer timely, practice-informed insights or critical reflections on emerging issues. Finally, our Senior Leader Perspective section features curated contributions from experienced leaders in government, military, or industry, offering strategic viewpoints that enrich the journal’s relevance to both scholars and practitioners.
Authors should ensure that their articles can be read at both interdisciplinary and disciplinary levels. All submissions must contain unclassified material that is suitable for unrestricted distribution.
While word count ranges are provided for each article type, they are not enforced rigidly. Authors should prioritize clarity, conciseness, and relevance. If your manuscript falls significantly outside the suggested range, feel free to contact the editorial team for guidance.
Research Articles
Research articles are peer-reviewed contributions presenting original, rigorous, and theoretically grounded scholarship relevant to the cyber defense landscape. Given the multidisciplinary nature of the journal and its broad readership, including practitioners, academics, policymakers, and military professionals, we welcome a wide range of methodologically sound research approaches and submissions, from shorter analytical pieces to longer, in-depth studies.
Typical length ranges from 3,000 to 10,000 words (excluding abstract and references), with shorter pieces expected to have a tightly scoped contribution and longer ones offering more substantial or integrative insights. Authors should ensure that their articles can be read at both interdisciplinary and disciplinary levels.
Every research article must clearly articulate its research question(s), contribution statement, describe the research design or methodology employed, and demonstrate engagement with existing academic literature. Submissions should contribute to knowledge development through systematic analysis, empirical evidence, or theoretical advancement, rather than personal reflection or commentary.
Professional Commentaries provide timely, practice-oriented reflections on current developments, operational challenges, or policy issues in the cyber defense landscape. These contributions are designed to stimulate informed discussion and share wisdom and knowledge across sectors. While we do not expect a high level of academic formalism, the strongest commentaries are those that thoughtfully engage with relevant literature, frameworks, or prior debates to support and enrich the author’s argument or experience. They are typically 2,500 to 6,000 words (excluding abstract and references) and written in an accessible tone. Submissions to the Professional Commentary track follow a single-blind review process, where the reviewers know the identity of the authors.
Senior Leader Perspectives
Senior Leader Perspectives are curated pieces authored by senior figures in the military, government, or industry. These articles offer high-level reflections, strategic viewpoints, or vision pieces that speak to long-term challenges and opportunities in cyber defense. While they are not peer-reviewed, they are selected and edited by the editorial team for relevance, clarity, and impact. Lengths may vary, but are generally between 2,000 and 4,000 words.
POLICIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AUTHORS
Originality
By submitting a manuscript to The Cyber Defense Review, authors confirm that the work is original and has not been previously published in any form, except as part of a dissertation, an abstract, or a recorded lecture.
Manuscripts must not be under review elsewhere, including other journals, conferences, or workshop proceedings. All authors must approve the submission, along with any relevant institutional or funding authorities. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, including self- plagiarism or duplicate publication without proper citation. All submissions will be subject to originality checks using plagiarism detection software.
Preprints Policy
The posting of a manuscript as a preprint does not constitute prior publication and does not preclude consideration for publication in The Cyber Defense Review. However, authors must ensure that:
- The manuscript is not formally published, peer-reviewed, or under consideration by another journal at the time of submission.
- The preprint version is clearly identified as such and does not claim to be the final published version.
- Any subsequent versions of the manuscript submitted to the journal represent a meaningful scholarly contribution and are not identical duplicates of previously disseminated content presented as a final publication.
Upon publication in the journal, authors are expected to update the preprint record to include a full citation and DOI link to the Version of Record, and to clearly indicate that the article has been peer-reviewed and formally published.
Public-Facing Publications
Authors may publish non-peer-reviewed, public-facing pieces (e.g., policy briefs, blog posts, or op-eds) that draw on ideas from their submitted or accepted article, provided the content is written for a different audience, does not substantially reproduce the submitted text, and ideally references the forthcoming publication in The Cyber Defense Review (only once the article has been formally accepted by the CDR). Such publications must be disclosed to the editorial team at the time of submission or as soon as they are planned.
Security Review and Clearance
The Cyber Defense Review is the only unclassified Department of Defense sponsored journal that exclusively covers the cyber domain.
The Cyber Defense Review functions under the DoD Public Affairs principle of "security review at the source." All submissions must contain unclassified material that is suitable for unrestricted distribution. To ensure no violation of security or policy clearance strictures, it is the author's responsibility to ensure that their submission receives any applicable security review prior to submission. For U.S. Government authors, submissions that is/are characterized as opinion or historical pieces does/do not require security review; all other categories of submissions must include proof of security review signed by the security officer and public affairs officer of the author's assigned organization.
Additionally, all U.S. Government authors shall include the following disclaimer in the Work(s): "The views expressed in this work are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of their employer(s), the U.S. Military Academy, the Department of War, the U.S. Government, or any subdivisions thereof.
Authorship Criteria
All individuals listed as authors on a manuscript submitted to The Cyber Defense Review must meet the following authorship criteria. Authors must have made a substantial contribution to at least one of the following: the conception or design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; the drafting of the manuscript; or its critical revision for important intellectual content.
In addition to contributing intellectually, all authors must have approved the final version of the manuscript and must agree to be accountable for all aspects of the published work, including the accuracy and integrity of any part of the content.
Individuals who do not meet these criteria—such as those who provided general supervision, administrative support, or editorial assistance—should not be listed as authors but may be acknowledged elsewhere in the manuscript. Authorship must reflect actual contributions, and honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable.
Disclosure Statements for Conflict of Interest
Authors are required to disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the work. All conflicts of interest must be declared at submission and will be published alongside the article when relevant.
Copyright and Use of Third-party Material
The author is responsible for securing permission for any copyrighted material included in the submission. The author must ensure the content of the submission does not contain material that is libelous, or would violate copyright or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others, including patent, trademark, trade secret, or rights of privacy or publicity. Prior to publication of the article, the author shall provide The Cyber Defense Review with proof of consent to use all copyright-protected material.
Ethical Approval
All research involving human participants, human data, or human-derived materials must adhere to recognized ethical standards, including the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Such research must receive approval from an appropriate ethics review board, and the manuscript must include a statement specifying the name of the ethics committee and, when applicable, the approval or reference number. If the research received
an exemption from ethics approval, this must also be clearly stated in the manuscript. Authors should be prepared to provide additional documentation upon request. The editorial team reserves the right to reject submissions if it determines that the study was not conducted within an acceptable ethical framework.
Responsible Use of Large Language Models and Generative AI Tools
We allow, and even encourage, authors to use Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) to assist with writing, editing, or translation. This can be done under three key conditions. First, all content produced must be correct, original, and accurately reflect the author’s own intellectual contributions. Authors remain fully responsible for AI outputs as well as the appropriateness of the research process for which AI is used. Second, authors must clearly disclose any use of AI software when it generates substantive new text, code, tables, or figures. Such disclosures, detailing the tool used and sections affected (prompt text disclosure is left at the discretion of the authors), should be included in acknowledgements or appendices, with the level of detail matching the extent of AI use. Third, AI tools must never be listed as co‑authors; all listed authors must meet standard authorship criteria and are fully accountable for the content.
Authors may use AI tools to enhance grammar, clarity, or spelling, without needing disclosure. However, any use beyond basic language polishing must be transparently reported. These guidelines ensure responsible use of AI while maintaining full author ownership and accountability for published work.
This section will be updated with new information as the landscape evolves
Publication Ethics and Malpractice
The Cyber Defense Review is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and integrity. We follow the principles and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This includes expectations for editors, authors, and reviewers regarding originality, fairness, transparency, and confidentiality throughout the submission and review process.
All parties involved in the publication process are expected to act responsibly and ethically. Authors affirm that their work is original, properly cited, and not under consideration elsewhere. Reviewers must provide fair, timely, and unbiased assessments, and editors are responsible for ensuring a transparent and rigorous review process.
The journal will investigate allegations of misconduct before and after publication in accordance with COPE guidelines. Where necessary, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions will be issued to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. For detailed guidance on ethical responsibilities, please refer to the COPE website:
https://publicationethics.org
PREPARING YOUR MANUSCRIPT
Manuscript Submission
Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word (.docx) format or as a LaTeX document (with all source files and compiled PDF). We strongly encourage the use of our online LaTeX template in Overleaf or our Word document templates for research articles or professional commentaries.
All manuscripts should be submitted through the journal’s online submission system:
https://www.editorialmanager.com/cyberdefreview/default.aspx
- Submissions should be in English and written in a clear, concise, and scholarly tone. Use American English spelling and conventions throughout. Avoid jargon when possible and define acronyms upon first use.
- Include page numbers for easier reference during peer review.
- Please include at submission all supplementary material cited in the text.
Author Biographies
Each submission must include a brief author biography (maximum 150 words) for every listed author, highlighting relevant affiliations, expertise, or experience related to the article. For Research Articles, include author biographies as separate files.
ORCID
Submitting authors are strongly encouraged to provide an ORCID iD (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) at submission. ORCID identifiers are included in papers and displayed online, both in the HTML and PDF versions of the publication, in compliance with recommended practice issued by ORCID.
If you do not already have an ORCID iD, you can register for free via the ORCID website.
Anonymization for Peer Review
For peer-reviewed submission types (Research Articles), please remove author names and any self-identifying references from the manuscript files to enable double-anonymized review. This includes tables and figures, supplemental materials, or external links to datasets, code repositories, etc.
Regarding anonymization of prior work by the authors, we generally recommend referring to your own publications in the third person whenever possible, for example, “Doe et al. (2025) argue that…” instead of “In our previous study, we argued…”.
A separate title page with author information and acknowledgements should be uploaded in the journal’s online submission system.
Abstract and Keywords
Provide a short abstract (around 200-250 words max.), avoiding any abbreviations and reference citations. Provide five keywords that reflect the core themes of your manuscript.
Citation Style
The Cyber Defense Review uses a Chicago Author-Date citation style:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home
In-text citations should include the author's last name and year of publication. For example: (Smith 2023).
The reference list should appear at the end of the manuscript, ordered alphabetically by author last name.
Include full publication details for each source, including DOIs where available.
Figures and tables should be clearly labeled and embedded within the main text near their first mention. Include descriptive captions and cite all figures/tables in the body of the manuscript. Ensure all visuals are high-resolution (minimum 300 dpi) and suitable for grayscale printing. Please submit any tables in your main article document in an editable format (Word or TeX/LaTeX, as appropriate), and not as images.
Accessibility and Print-ready Requirements
Authors are encouraged to follow accessibility best practices when preparing visual materials:
- Provide alt text for all figures and tables to describe their content for screen readers.
- Use symbols, patterns, or labels in graphs and charts instead of color alone, as all papers are printed in grayscale. Color should not be used to convey meaning, since it will not appear in the print version.
- Use clear, legible fonts and ensure high contrast between text and background in all visuals.
These practices help ensure your work is accessible to all readers, including those using assistive technologies.
Supplementary Material
Authors may include appendices, data tables, or supporting documents if they are essential to the work. These will be reviewed alongside the manuscript. Supporting materials which are not essential for inclusion in the full text may be published as online-only Supplementary Data.
Supplementary Data should be submitted for review, in a separate file or files from the manuscript. Most common file formats may be used: .doc; .ppt. .xls; .tif; jpg. Video files may be supplied in MP4, AVI or WMV format. Authors should ensure that the Supplementary Data is referred to in the main manuscript at an appropriate point in the text. It cannot be altered or replaced after the paper has been accepted for publication.
Data Availability Statement
The inclusion of a data availability statement is encouraged for papers published in The Cyber Defense Review. Data availability statements provide a standardized format for readers to understand the availability of original and third-party data underlying the research results described in the paper. The statement should describe and provide means of access, where possible, by linking to the data or providing the required unique identifier.
Revised Manuscript Versions
If resubmitting, provide a clean version of the revised manuscript, plus the original version, marked up with the revisions you have made. In addition, submit a document explaining how you have addressed each of the comments made by the reviewers and the Associate Editor.
PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
Technical and Administrative Check
All submissions to The Cyber Defense Review are first processed by the editorial office, which conducts a technical and administrative check to ensure that submissions comply with the journal’s requirements (including completeness, formatting, anonymization, and required documentation). Submissions that are incomplete or do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction prior to further evaluation.
Editorial and Research Integrity Assessment
Submissions are then screened by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Executive Editor, who conduct an initial editorial and research integrity assessment, including plagiarism screening, AI-generated content detection, verification of authors’ credentials, and checks for fabricated or unverifiable references. The Editors also evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and its overall scholarly quality. The journal follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines in all aspects of editorial decision-making and research integrity. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, show evidence of academic misconduct, or do not meet the expected standard of scholarly quality may be desk-rejected without external review. This initial screening is typically completed within three weeks of submission.
Associate Editor Assessment and Pre-review Revision
Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to a member of the Editorial Board, who serves as Associate Editor and oversees the review process. The Associate Editor evaluates whether the manuscript is ready for peer review or should be returned to the authors with pre-review revision requests. This stage is intended to address major structural or conceptual issues early in the process, thereby respecting reviewers’ time while improving the overall quality of submissions and their likelihood of success. In some cases, authors may be advised to reconsider the submission type (e.g., from Research Article to Professional Commentary, or vice versa).
External Peer Review
Most manuscript types are then sent for external peer review, typically involving two to three independent reviewers, under a double-anonymized peer-review process (where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another). Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and absence of conflicts of interest, and are asked to evaluate the originality, rigor, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript for the journal’s audience. Authors are encouraged to consult the reviewer guidelines to better understand the evaluation criteria applied during review.
Submissions to the Professional Commentary track follow a single-blind review process, in which reviewers know the identity of the authors. This reflects the nature of such contributions, which often rely on identifiable case studies, organizational affiliations, or operational insights that cannot be fully anonymized without compromising their value. These submissions are evaluated for clarity, insight, and relevance by members of the editorial team and, when appropriate, external reviewers.
Reviewer Selection and Ethical Standards
Authors may suggest potential reviewers who are qualified to assess their submission. However, suggested reviewers must not have any conflict of interest, defined as a personal, professional, or institutional relationship that could bias the review process. The editorial team retains full discretion over reviewer selection. Both reviewers and editors are expected to treat all submitted materials as confidential and must not share, discuss, or use any part of the content outside the review process. All participants in the peer-review process are expected to adhere to principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and ethical conduct in line with COPE standards.
Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers’ feedback and the judgment of the Associate Editor and Editor-in-Chief, a decision is made to:
- Reject the submission
- Reject with encouragement to resubmit
- Invite a revision (with minor or major changes)
- Accept the manuscript (typically pending minor corrections)
Revision Process
Acceptance on the first round of review is exceptional. In most cases, even strong manuscripts require revision—whether to clarify arguments, respond to reviewer concerns, strengthen evidence, or refine structure and style. If a revision is invited, authors will receive a meta-review summarizing the reviewers’ feedback and providing clear, actionable guidance for improvement. Revised manuscripts are expected within 20 to 40 days, depending on the scope of revisions; extension requests may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
All resubmissions must include a point-by-point response to reviewers, detailing how each comment has been addressed. This response may be provided as a separate document or spreadsheet listing each reviewer comment alongside the corresponding reply, or as embedded comments within the revised manuscript.
Revised manuscripts are typically evaluated by the same reviewers. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance; manuscripts may be declined at any stage if concerns remain unresolved.
Principles of Fairness and Objectivity
The journal is committed to fair, unbiased, and timely review. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the submission, without regard to authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal characteristics.
Alternative Publication Pathways
In some cases, when a submission does not align with the journal’s editorial direction or space constraints but still holds clear value for the community, the editorial team may encourage or assist authors in submitting their work to partner publications, such as the Modern War Institute (MWI) or Gray Space, which offer alternative formats for high-quality contributions.
Communication and Timelines
The Editor-in-Chief communicates all editorial decisions directly to authors. A first decision is typically reached within three to five months of submission, with additional review rounds conducted as needed.
Rejection and Appeals
When a manuscript is rejected without encouragement to resubmit, the decision is final. Revised versions of the same study will not be considered for resubmission. This policy ensures consistency in editorial decisions and supports the sustainability of the peer-review process.
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the editorial office. Appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis and may involve consultation with independent editors or reviewers. The outcome of an appeal is final.
PUBLICATION PROCESS
Once an article has been accepted for publication in The Cyber Defense Review, it enters a structured post-acceptance process.
Copyediting, Formatting, and Author Review
First, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting to ensure clarity, accuracy, and alignment with the journal’s editorial standards. This stage also includes full formatting of the article into the journal’s publication template. The process includes editing for language, structure, and coherence; consistency of terminology; verification and formatting of references; and alignment with the journal’s style and layout requirements. Where appropriate, structural refinements may be introduced, such as reorganizing paragraphs, clarifying section transitions, or adding subheadings to improve navigability and argumentative clarity. Copyeditors may also flag unclear arguments, inconsistencies, or missing information for author review. These interventions are designed to strengthen the presentation of the work without altering its substance.
Copyediting and formatting are conducted in a collaborative environment, where edits and queries are tracked and visible to the authors. Authors are expected to review, validate, and respond to all editorial changes and queries to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the final text. They are also required to verify that all submitted information is accurate and complete, including author details, affiliations, authorship order, ORCID identifiers (if applicable), short biographies, employment status (including U.S. Government affiliation where relevant), and acknowledgments. A funding information paragraph should also be added, if applicable.
Author Agreement, Proofs, and Final Approval
The edited and formatted version is then returned to the authors for validation. At this stage, authors are also asked to sign the journal’s open access agreement. Following author approval, the article proceeds directly to the proof stage. Final proofs are sent to the authors for one last check before release. At this stage, only minor corrections (e.g., typographical errors or formatting adjustments) are permitted; substantive changes are not allowed.
Online Publication and Print Copies
A DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is assigned to the article, providing a permanent, citable link and allowing authors to share their work as early as possible. The final version is then published on the journal’s website, allowing early access ahead of print. Once a full issue is compiled, the article is included in the print edition of the journal and distributed accordingly.
The corresponding author receives one complimentary print copy of the issue in which their article appears, provided that a valid mailing address is supplied.