Manuscripts submitted to the Iraqi Journal for Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IJEEE) journal are reviewed by at least three expert reviewers. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the submitted manuscript to supply a report to the editor and recommend whether the submitted manuscript should be accepted, require more revisions, or might be rejected.
Invitation to Review
The editor sends an invitation email to the reviewer which contains the manuscript title and abstract. The reviewer can accept or decline the invitation. In case the reviewer accepts the invitation, another email will be sent to the reviewer which contains a link to download the full manuscript. As part of the evaluation of the manuscript, the editor asks the reviewer:
- to evaluate the novelty, significance, presentation quality, soundness of scientific, interesting for readers, overall merit, and the level of the manuscript language;
- to look at manuscript references and evaluate the sobriety of citations to other references and there are no inappropriate self-citations;
- to provide a recommendation for the publication of the manuscript (accept the manuscript, revise the manuscript, or reject the manuscript);
- to provide a review report including detailed notes for authors and editorial board.
Confidentiality and Anonymity
The content of the manuscript should be kept, including the title and abstract, confidential. IJEEE Journal operates under a single-blind peer review. Reviewers must remain anonymous to authors, either in their comments or in the review report.
Timely Review Reports
The reviewers are asked to assist by sending the review reports promptly. In case the reviewer needs more time to complete the review report, the reviewer can send an email to the editor to extend the review deadline.
Review Report
We have provided some important instructions regarding the review report as listed below:
- Please read the submitted manuscript carefully as well as all the supplementary materials, if there are any, paying more consideration to the figures, tables, data, equations, and proposed methods.
- The review report should analyze the manuscript in general and specific sections and the main concepts in the manuscript.
- Be sure that the points you raise in the review report are detailed so that the authors may understand and address them.
- Reviewers should not recommend excessive citation of their articles or that of another author or articles from the journal where the manuscript was presented as a means of increasing citations from the reviewer/authors/journal. Reviewers can provide references as needed, but they must improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Review report should be included the following:
- A summary highlighting the aim of the manuscript, its main contribution, and strong points.
- Comments of the general concepts
Manuscript: focus on weakness areas, the hypothesis validation, inaccuracies of the methodological, missing controls, etc.
Review: commenting on the review topic covered and completeness, the review topic relevance, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of the references, etc.
These comments must highlight the manuscript’s scientific content and must be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.
- Specific comments indicating line numbers, tables, or figures that indicate inaccuracies in the text or unclear sentences. These comments should also highlight scientific content.
General questions supporting your review report:
- Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the journal’s topics, and well organized?
- Are the references cited recent (mostly within the past five years)? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
- Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the design of the experiments suitable for validation of proposed methods?
- Are the results of the manuscript can be reproduced based on the details mentioned in the methodology section?
- Are the figures/tables/images/schemes suitable? Is the data properly shown? Are they understandable and easy to interpret? It should include details of the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.
- Are the conclusions consistent with the discussion of the results and scientific analysis?
- Please, evaluate ethical statements and data availability statements to ensure they are sufficient.
Rating the Manuscript
The reviewer should rate the following aspects of the manuscript:
- Title: Is it specific and does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
- Abstract: Is it brief and does it indicate the purpose of the work, what was done, what was found, and the significance?
- Methodology: Are the methods appropriate and presented in sufficient detail?
- Data: Are the data adequate to support the conclusions?
- Writing: Is it clear, concise, and in good English?
- Figures: Are they justified? Are they sharp, with lettering proportionate to the size of the figure? Are there legends to explain the figures?
- Tables: Can they be simplified or condensed? Should any be omitted?
- Trade names, abbreviations, symbols: Are these misused?
- Originality/Novelty: Is the researcher’s contribution to the topic of significant value, and the results obtained lead to scientific development?
- Significance: Are the results appropriately shown? Are adequately interpreted? Are the results interesting? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations that have been scientifically proven?
- Quality of Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written? Is the data presented appropriately and the analysis accurate? Did you use the highest standards for displaying results?
- Scientific Soundness: Technically, is the study properly designed? Are analyzes done with the highest technical standards? Is the data of the results strong enough to conclude? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
- Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the article attract a wide range of researchers or be of interest only to a limited number of researchers?
- Overall Merit: Is there any benefit in publishing this manuscript? Does this work provide a significant development of current knowledge? Did the researchers address an important long-standing question by intelligent experiments?
Articles that are submitted to the IJEEE journal should achieve the standards of ethics of publication:
- Submitted articles should present results that have not been published or submitted before, even part of them.
- Submitted articles should be original and not include text from other references without suitable citation.
- In the case of the manuscript including biological studies, the study must be subject to generally accepted ethical research standards.
Rank and Comments
- Rank: Rank the manuscript relative to other work in the same field.
- General comments: Provide comments regarding the novelty and significance of the manuscript.
- Comments to the Authors: Please write comments that can be seen by the author.
- Comments to the Editors: These Comments cannot be seen by the author.
Overall Recommendation
Please provide a recommendation for publication of the manuscript as follows (your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors):
- Publish unaltered: The manuscript is accepted without any further changes.
- Publish with minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted after slight revision based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Publish with major revisions: Acceptance of the manuscript depends on the revisions and the reviewers’ conviction. The researcher must send a revised manuscript. In addition to a response letter to answer point by point or provide a refutation if some reviewer’s comments could not be reviewed. The authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a month and the revised version will be returned to the reviewers for further comments.
- Reject (inappropriate material): The manuscript has many flaws, makes no adequate contribution to be novel, and the paper is rejected without an offer to resubmit it to the journal.