IJEEE adheres to the optimal standards of the peer review process to reach the purposeful research content. The journal editors use selection processes that avoid prejudice. While the content features of the scientific article are considered the basic criterion for selection while avoiding selection based on being from a specific institution, country, or region.
IJEEE uses a single-blind review system, in which the identity and affiliation of the author are exposed to the reviewers while the authors cannot know the identity and affiliation of the reviewers. This method provides more transparency during the review process, as the reviewer can review the authors’ previous work and estimate the amount of contribution and its novelty of work. On the other hand, the author must have great confidence in his works and there is sobriety in his research since his identity is revealed by the reviewers.
IJEEE operates a two-stage process in the review of submitted manuscripts: the Internal Peer Review Process and the External Peer Review Process.
Internal Peer Review Process
- IJEEE uses the EDAS system in its research management process, furthermore, the first step after submitting the research is to reveal the percentage of similarity with other works, which is achieved by using the Turnitin system, and here the research is rejected by Editorial Board if the similarity percentage exceeds 20%. On the other hand, if the similarity percentage is less than 20%, the similarity report can be reviewed by the Editorial Board to take advantage of it in estimates of the author’s commitment to publishing ethics.
- After the research passes the similarity evaluation, the primary review begins by the journal’s editors to validate the article in terms of the scientific content prominence and the researcher’s commitment to the journal’s topics and scope. Further to reviewing the article in terms of the researcher’s commitment to the standards of scientific material, scientific quality, and publishing ethics.
External Peer Review Process
- After the article has passed the Internal Peer Review Process and is fit for compliance with the journal’s scope, language, and publication ethics, it will be sent to at least three experts for review, and reviewers will be given 30 days to express their opinions. The reviewer must provide article scores and comments to the journal editors by submitting them in the EDAS system, in addition to all evidence that confirms the sobriety of the assessment and decision-making. It is noteworthy, that experts are carefully selected by the editorial board based on the expert’s biography and rewards in previous evaluations.
- The decision is taken for the submitted manuscript by the editor-in-chief based on the comments and recommendations of the reviewers, either to accept, request an additional revision, or reject. In the case an additional review is required, the manuscript is entered into the second round of review and is usually sent to the same reviewers. But in the case that the required modifications are too many and require a great deal of time and effort, the manuscript is rejected with the possibility of resubmitting to the journal at a later time after fulfilling the requirements and also being entered into a new round of revision. In some cases after the first review, the feedback from the reviewers may not be enough to make a decision, therefore additional reviewers are nominated to help make an accurate and fair decision.
- The final decision to accept the article is taken by the editor-in-chief based on the scientific and technical soundness that is reported by the reviewers. Reviewers’ reports must be taken based on article language safety with a precise and adequate presentation of the research methodology, then the experiments and work steps are described with the results presented and discussed to prove the validity of the proposed work. In case, the author does not agree with the comments reported by reviewers, the author can write a response letter to discuss the points that have misunderstanding comments (point by point).
- Possible outcomes that depend on the reviewers’ reports:
Publish unaltered (accepted): The article will be published in IJEEE, and there will be no further modification.
Publish with minor revisions (accepted): The IJEEE will publish the article, but some corrections should be made to the article within 30 days.
Publish with major revisions (conditional acceptance): The article will be accepted for publication in IJEEE under the condition that the authors are committed to achieving the modifications required by the reviewers and editors, and there may be a need to return the article to the reviewers for the second round of review. The researcher is given 60 days to complete the required modifications, and the author can request an extension of this period in agreement with the editor in case there are a lot of modifications.
Reject, inappropriate material (unacceptable): It means that the scientific material in the article is not valid for publication in IJEEE and there is no possibility to modify the article to access the publishable material. In this case, the article will be rejected.
- It is noteworthy, that the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief with the help of the Editorial Board members. They discuss the issues of articles, provide advice, and help highlight the factors that help decide after the evaluation process is completed.
- It may be difficult for the Editor-in-Chief to make a final decision on some articles, therefore, there is support and advice from the members of the Editorial Board. In addition to the possibility of participating in the peer-review process or suggesting additional reviewers who help in making a fair and accurate decision.
- The Editorial Board assists in managing the peer review process and monitors the sobriety of the article review, in addition to providing advice to make the peer review process highly efficient and in an ideal timeframe.
- There can be appeals for revision cases, in which the Editor-in-Chief is believed to have a mistake in the final decision to reject the paper. The Editor-in-Chief can reconsider the decision he believes is inaccurate and the error occurred due to information that was relied upon in making the decision. This happens, but is not limited, in the reports submitted by the reviewers, or there may be bias and it is discovered and proven in the authors’ response letter, which must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief email “editor.chief@ijeee.edu.iq”, the letter must include a detailed explanation of the reason your belief that the decision was not accurate and authors should answering the reviewers’ comments point by point if the reason for the reject is the reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief decides on the appeal in consultation with the members of the Editorial Board to be a fair and accurate decision.