Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Innovations (JECEI) uses a double-blind type of peer review method to review and select the valuable papers for publication. Under the double-blind peer review, the identity of the authors and reviewers is held confidential together to maintain scientific objectivity and also academic integrity. All articles sent to JECEI will be peer reviewed at least one round.

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions on whether a paper is acceptable for publication or not. This will be done through online review process from submission a new manuscript to final decision and possible publication. At the first steps of the review process, plagiarism check will be done by an online plagiarism checker which allows us to measure the originality of the authors' work.

After a manuscript is sent to the online system, the system immediately informs the editorial office. The regular review process includes the following items:

  1. Checking the English language
  2. Format/Style check based on the JECEI’s paper template
  3. Plagiarism check
  4. Editorial board fast review
  5. Blind peer reviews the manuscript at least by two potential experts in the field of the paper, if it passes four above-mentioned items.

After passing the first four above-mentioned items, this manuscript will be assigned to two or more reviewers by an editor. After receiving reviewers’ comments, the editor makes a decision and sends it to EiC. The decisions sent to the authors is based on the comments of all associated reviewers and may not exactly reflect comments from one of the reviewers, which are as follows:
1- Accept without any change
2- Conditional accept pending minor revision. The revised manuscript may be sent to reviewers for another round of peer review.
3- Conditional accept pending major revision. The revised manuscript will be peer reviewed for another round, normally by the original reviewers.
4- Reject.

Standards and Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


Flowchart of JECEI peer review process