Review Guidelines

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the International Journal for Research in Electronics & Electrical Engineering (IJREEE) are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process prior to any editorial decision. Each submission is assessed by independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field. The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

IJREEE considers only original manuscripts that have not been previously published, are not under consideration elsewhere, and do not infringe upon existing copyrights. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or unethical research practice is strictly prohibited.

Authors are responsible for presenting their research in a clear, accurate, and concise manner. The primary objective of publication is the transparent communication of scientific knowledge; therefore, manuscripts with ambiguous, misleading, or unnecessarily complex presentation may be returned for revision or rejected to preserve the integrity and readability of the scholarly record.

For more details click here.

Review Procedure

Reviewers provide anonymous, independent assessments of the manuscript. Their comments are shared with the authors to support revision and improvement of the work. When submitting a revised manuscript, authors are required to address each reviewer and editor comment and clearly explain the changes made or provide justification where suggested changes are not adopted.
 
Based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:
 
Accepted without revision
 
Accepted with minor revisions
 
Accepted subject to major revisions and further review
 
Rejected
 
Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author by the editorial office.

Review Timeline

The editorial board aims to complete the review process in a timely manner while maintaining careful and fair evaluation. Under normal circumstances, the review process is completed within 1-2 weeks. While efficiency is a priority, editorial judgment and academic quality are not compromised to meet time targets.

Evaluation Criteria

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by expert reviewers based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution to the existing body of knowledge

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims, scope, and thematic focus

  • Clarity, coherence, and readability of the language and presentation

  • Scientific accuracy and sound interpretation of results and discussion

  • Logical structure and organization of the manuscript

  • Appropriateness, transparency, and rigor of the research methodology

  • Quality, clarity, and relevance of tables, figures, and illustrations

Reviewer Feedback

Reviewer comments are expected to be objective, constructive, and respectful, providing clear and actionable guidance to help authors strengthen the quality of their work. In addition to comments intended for authors, reviewers may submit confidential remarks exclusively for the editor to support informed editorial decisions.

Reviewer Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers are required to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and professional integrity. This includes maintaining strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, offering impartial and unbiased evaluations, identifying relevant missing or overlooked references, and refraining from using any unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.