Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Innovations (JECEI) is published by Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, and committed to apply double-blind peer reviewing process policy, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices and authors may find the journal’s Policies and Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process. Peer review is intended to improve the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of published manuscripts and to help Editors decide which manuscripts to publish. Peer review does not guarantee manuscript quality and does not reliably detect scientific misconduct. Peer reviewers advise editors on how a manuscript might be improved and on its priority for publication in that journal. Editors decide whether and under which conditions manuscripts are accepted for publication, assisted by reviewers’ advice. Editors of peer-reviewed journals need not send all submitted manuscripts out for review. Manuscripts that seem unlikely to be published in that journal may be returned to authors without external review, to allow authors to submit the manuscript to another journal without delay and to make efficient use of reviewers’ and editors’ time. Editors should also periodically publish statistics describing their journal’s review process, such as number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rate, and the average time from manuscript submission to rejection letter to authors and, for accepted manuscripts, time to publication.
JECEI uses a double-blind type of peer review method to review and select valuable articles to publish. 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 the online review process from submission of a new manuscript to final decision and possible publication. At the first step of the review process, a plagiarism check will be done by an online plagiarism checker ( iThenticate) 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:
- Checking the English language
- Format/Style check based on the JECEI’s paper template
- Plagiarism check
- Editorial board fast review
- 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:
- Accept without any change
- Conditional accept pending minor revision. The revised manuscript may be sent to reviewers for another round of peer review.
- Conditional accept pending major revision. The revised manuscript will be peer- reviewed for another round, normally by the original reviewers.
Standards and Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Editorial decisions are made based on the manuscript’s validity and coherence, as judged by the peer reviewers. In addition to their comments for the authors, reviewers are asked whether the research is sound and coherent, the topic interesting and the writing of acceptable quality. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis that peer reviewers are in accordance with one another, or that at least there is no strong dissenting view. In cases where there is strong disagreement, either among the peer review or between the authors and the peer reviewers, the advice is sought from an editorial board member or a researcher of similar standing.
The detailed Journal peer review process is based on the following Flow Diagram: