National Security and Strategy jurnal is recognizing the importance of the Peer Review Process, and the need  to be characterized by the highest levels of integrity, transparency, and high academic standards, the  (the Peer Review Process) procedures are as follows:

1. Journal peer review (double blind review), This means concealing the names of the author and peer reviewers, as well as any information identifying their identities or place of work, when submitting the research for peer review.
2. The researcher submits the research on the journal's website on the Knowledge Bank platform (any research submitted in a different manner will not be considered).
3. The research is initially evaluated to determine whether it complies with the formal publication rules and is eligible for peer review.
4. The initial evaluation is based on the following conditions: the originality of the research, the suitability of the topic to the journal, the type of research, the correctness of the language, and the accuracy of documentation based on the journal's approved documentation system, ensuring compliance with the ethics of scientific publishing.
5. The author is informed of the results of the initial evaluation and the validity of the research for peer review.
6. If the research is deemed eligible for peer review after the initial evaluation, it is sent to two peer reviewers in the research field, with a request for a response within (15) days.
7. If the research is deemed valid by the referees, it will be electronically converted to the "Articles Ready for Publication" file.
8. If one of the reviewer rejects the research, it will be sent to a third reviewer. If they agree with one of the reviewer, the research will be accepted or rejected based on the opinion of the preferred reviewer.
9. If the research is accepted for publication with amendments, the research will be sent to the researcher to make the required amendments within a maximum of (15) days. The research will then be returned to the reviewers for review and to ensure the required amendments have been implemented. The journal will also follow up on this matter.
10. If the researcher objects to the reviewer's result for academic or scientific reasons, he must prepare a detailed and documented scientific report that includes the academic and scientific reasons for the points they objected to. A new reviewer will be appointed, and the reviewer's result will then be considered final.
11. The reviewers are required to complete a detailed form about the refereed research, explaining the reasons for their acceptance or rejection.
12. Upon final acceptance of the research, the researcher is formally notified of its suitability for publication.
13. The journal reviews the research and prepares it according to the specified publication standards, then prepared for final publication.
14. The journal's board of directors continuously evaluates the performance of the reviewers to ensure that the  peer review process meets the correct standards.