FPO
IEEE

Peer Review

Peer Review

The technical and scientific merits of manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal are evaluated by an anonymous peer-review process.

The Editor in Chief will assign an Associate Editor whose field of expertise is most closely aligned with the main topic of a given manuscript, to oversee the review process. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable in form or content by the Journal's Editorial Board will be returned to the authors without review.

The Associate Editor will enlist three reviewers with expertise in the field in question to evaluate the manuscript. Publication recommendations, based on the reviewers’ comments and the Associate Editor’s judgment, are returned to the corresponding author with instructions on the course of action to follow.

General questions with regard to the peer-review process should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Prompt response by potential reviewers to a request for a manuscript review is a key component in
the timeliness of the review process. Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript are usually given 4 weeks to return their reviews, unless other arrangements are made with the Associate Editor responsible for the manuscript.

Reviewers who anticipate having difficulty meeting this timeline or who find that the paper topic is inappropriate to their expertise are urged to contact the Associate Editor as soon as possible. Suggestions of alternate reviewers are always welcome.

Reviews must focus on the technical content of the manuscript and provide comments as specific and constructive as circumstances permit. Reviewers are not surrogate proof readers.

The reviewer recommendations regarding the suitability of a manuscript for publication may include:

• Accept pending suitable changes or corrections
• Change paper category: article or technical communication
• Revise and resubmit
• Reject, do not reconsider
• More suitable for a different publication

Author Response to Reviews

When preparing revised manuscripts, authors must compile a detailed response to each review comment or suggestion. This compilation must be submitted as a separate document along with the revised manuscript to avoid delaying and prolonging the review process.