Thank you for agreeing to review an article submitted to Intelligence and cyber French studies/Etudes françaises de renseignement et de cyber. We seek academic excellence and have therefore implemented this double-blind peer review mechanism.

 

To support you in this process, here are some indications submitted to your appreciation.

 

Ethical commitment

​

We have reached out to you as we have determined that you do not have any personal or direct professional connections with the author/authors. If, during your review, you find that this is not the case and/or that the independence of your judgment may be compromised, we kindly ask you to inform us and interrupt your work, without prejudice to the compensation that has been earned.

 

Comments in the body of the article

​

We kindly request that you prioritize your comments and modifications within the body of the article by enabling the "Track Changes for Everyone" mode and utilizing the "Comments" function.

With this in mind, we ask that you anonymize these edits and comments. You will find the procedure on Word by following this tutorial.

 

To guide you in your work as reviewer, you can draw inspiration from the following suggestions in the sub-sections “Relevance and originality of the article”, “Scientific quality”, “Literary quality”.

 

The reviewer's comments should :

• Be respectful and constructive;

• Be limited to the scientific and literary aspect;

• Initiate an impartial and unbiased scientific discussion;

• Make it possible to specify an idea, to clarify and improve the quality of scientific production;

• Suggest as much as methods for improvement or clarification, propose solutions;

• Provide no indication as to their author;

• Do not tend to maintain at all costs a scientific consensus that the article may propose to challenge.

​

​

Relevance and originality of the article

​

               Poor         Average           Good          Very Good         Excellent

 

• Are the subject and the research question relevant to EFRC’s objectives, particularly to the specific issue they are part of?

• Does the article bring new content or provide enriching critical analysis?

• Is the article original?

• Is there a possibility of plagiarism?

• Are the sources and archival elements original within this field of study?

• Does the document emphasize a comparative approach?

• Does the document emphasize a multidisciplinary approach?

 

Scientific quality

 

             Poor           Average            Good        Very Good         Excellent

 

• Does the employed method allow for addressing and analyzing the subject in a way that contributes to the advancement of knowledge?

• Is the theme or subject adequately argued?

• Are the concepts clearly defined?

• Are the quoted or used references appropriate, relevant, sufficient, diverse and up to date?

• How would you evaluate the depth of analysis and/or discussion? Do they meet the stated objectives at the beginning of the text?

• Are there suspicions of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication or manipulation of data or images, as well as ethical difficulties?

• Does the manner of representing data (text, table, figure, photograph, video, etc.) facilitate understanding?

• Are the figures and tables informative and properly labeled with titles, captions, and axes?

 

Formally:

• Is the title of the article relevant, appropriate, and representative of its content?

• Is the abstract relevant? Does it accurately reflect the content of the article? Does it provide key results and their major implications?

• Are the keywords well-chosen to illustrate the main ideas?

• Does the introduction present the topic and its relevance? Does it outline the structure of the article? Is its length reasonable?

• Does the introduction logically lead to the stated hypothesis that structures the article?

• Are the research questions and/or working hypotheses indicated and highlighted?

• Do the article's subsections help understand the progression of the argument and guide the reader?

• Does the conclusion effectively summarize the article, its main axes, and contributions?

• Are the guidelines provided in the "Author's Note" adhered to?

​

​

Literary quality

​

              Poor          Average        Good            Very Good         Excellent

 

​

• Is the article coherent, easy to read, precise, and well-structured?

• Is the vocabulary used appropriate and free from excessive formality?

• Are the grammar, syntax, and spelling satisfactory for a scientific publication?

• Does the article adhere to an ideal length of 40,000 characters including spaces? If not, is there a justified reason for the deviation?

• Are the guidelines provided in the "Author's Note" adhered to?

 

Recommendation

 

        Accepted                          Accepted with                       Accepted with feasible                Rejected

without modification        minor modifications                       major modifications

​

​