Reviewers play very important role in the peer review process. Efforts of reviewers are the key for the objective and timely review process for all submissions and to ensure the publication of only high-quality papers. We greatly appreciate reviewers for volunteering their time and expertise to review the IJEEC submissions. The following are guidelines we suggest that you follow while you are reviewing submissions. By following these guidelines, you will help the Editorial Board in their final submission selection process and help to ensure the high quality of the IJEEC publications.
IJEEC operates a double-blind review process for all submissions. Reviewers must treat the submissions as confidential and should not show them or discuss with the others before publication.
IJEEC welcomes submissions in the wide range of subfields in the Electrical Engineering and Computing. Papers reporting original theoretical and/or practice oriented research and articles of interdisciplinary nature are all welcome. IJEEC publishes Original Research Papers, Review Papers, Case Studies, and Short Reports. Your review must contain classification of submission into one of the mentioned submission types, by selecting appropriate option within the Review Form. To help you classify the submission, short descriptions and expectations of each type of submission are available below.
Original Research Papers are detailed studies reporting original research and are classified as primary literature. These submissions should present well-rounded studies reporting innovative advances that further knowledge about a topic of importance to the fields of Electrical Engineering and Computing. The conclusions of the Original Research Papers should be clearly supported by the results. Original Research Papers should be prepared according to a standard format called IMRAD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion). Original Research Papers can range in length from 8 to 12 pages.
Review Papers provide a reasoned survey and examination of a particular subject of research in Electrical Engineering and Computing. Review Paper should include critical assessment of the works cited, explanations of conflicts in the literature, and analysis of the field. The conclusion must discuss in detail the limitations of current knowledge, future directions to be pursued in research, and the overall importance of the topic in Electrical Engineering and Computing. Review Paper can range in length from 10 to 12 pages, and cite at least 50 references.
A Case Study examines a subject of analysis in Electrical Engineering and Computing in order to extrapolate key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A Case Study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but Case Study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm. Case Study papers can range in length from 8 to 12 pages.
A Short Report allows authors to publish the results of a small number of experiments, provided the conclusion is clear and justified, and the findings are novel and judged to be of high importance. Short Reports can range in length from 4 to 6 pages.
In addition to filling out the classification and ranking information on the Review Form, you must provide comments to the Authors and optionally to the Editor. We recommend that you jot down notes while you are reading the submission. In many cases the rankings from different reviewers are at different ends of the spectrum and the comments are needed to reconcile the differences.
In order to get the submissions published on time we need your reviews done on specified time. If you find that you will not be able to complete your reviews, please let the Editor know as soon as possible so that your submissions can be reassigned to another reviewer.
With the diversity of areas of expertise, it is not always possible to match a submission's topic with the reviewer's background or interests. If you believe that you cannot provide a good review of a submission due to a mismatch between your background and/or interests, please notify the Editor as soon as possible. If you would like to arrange a review from a colleague with the appropriate background, please coordinate this with the Editor.
A general rule is "Don't spend more time reviewing the submission than the author spent writing it." If you find that a submission has so many problems that it would require a complete rewrite to save it, make a reasonable number of comments and reject the submission.
If you receive a submission without references, please note this and factor it into your review. If you can provide comments back to the authors on relevant references that they should have reviewed or at least cited, please include this information in your comments.
If you review a submission that is excessively similar to previously published submissions (or you have reason to believe that the submission has previously been published), please note this in your comments to the Editor.
Editorial comments are helpful to authors. However, readability is a factor in a good submission. If the use of language is so poor that it makes reading difficult, please note this in your comments and reflect it in your ranking.
On occasion, a submission is so poor that reading the entire submission is impossible. If you were not able to read the entire submission, please note this in your comments to the Editor.
If you have any questions about how to review a submission, send your questions to the Editor-in-Chief.
Finally, thank you for being a reviewer and dedicating your time and expertise to IJEEC.