Page Content
International Research Journal of Computer and Electronics Engineering (IRJCEE)
The International Research Journal of Computer and Electronics Engineering (IRJCEE) follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. The journal is committed to maintaining academic integrity, technical excellence, and editorial fairness throughout the review process.
IRJCEE adopts a double-blind peer review model in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure impartial evaluation.
Peer Review Model
IRJCEE follows a double-blind peer review process:
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
- Manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, originality, technical quality, and relevance to the journal scope
This process ensures fairness, objectivity, and unbiased editorial decisions.
Review Workflow
The peer review process at IRJCEE consists of the following stages:
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system or official editorial communication channel.
Each submission must comply with the journal’s formatting, scope, and ethical requirements.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, the editorial office performs an initial screening to verify:
- Relevance to the journal scope
- Compliance with author guidelines
- Basic manuscript structure and formatting
- Originality and language quality
- Completeness of author and manuscript information
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned for correction or rejected before review.
3. Plagiarism Check
All manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening before peer review.
The editorial office checks for:
- Similarity index
- Duplicate content
- Improper citation
- Unethical overlap with published work
Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity or unethical overlap may be rejected or returned for revision.
4. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified subject experts for peer review.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Subject expertise
- Research background
- Publication experience
- Availability
- Absence of conflicts of interest
Typically, each manuscript is assigned to two or more independent reviewers.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
During the review stage, reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality and novelty
- Technical quality
- Research methodology
- Validity of results
- Clarity of presentation
- Relevance to engineering and technology
- Quality of references and citations
- Overall contribution to the field
Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations for improvement.
6. Reviewer Recommendation
After evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:
- Accept as Submitted
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Accept with Major Revisions
- Resubmit for Review
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature and support the editor’s final decision.
7. Editorial Decision
The editor evaluates reviewer comments and makes the final editorial decision.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accepted
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Re-review Required
- Rejected
The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer comments.
8. Author Revision
If revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript and resubmit the corrected version within the specified time.
Authors should:
- Address all reviewer comments carefully
- Highlight changes made in the revised manuscript
- Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
Failure to submit revisions within the required timeline may delay publication.
9. Re-Review (If Required)
For manuscripts requiring substantial revision, the revised version may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
This ensures that all major concerns have been adequately addressed.
10. Final Acceptance
Once the manuscript satisfies editorial and reviewer expectations, it is formally accepted for publication.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to:
- Copyediting
- Proof preparation
- DOI assignment
- Final publication in the scheduled issue
11. Proofreading and Author Approval
Before publication, the final proof may be shared with the corresponding author for final review and approval.
Authors are expected to check:
- Typographical errors
- Formatting issues
- Author details
- Figure/table placement
- Final corrections
Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage.
12. Online Publication
After final approval, the manuscript is published online in the current issue of IRJCEE with open access availability and DOI assignment.
Review Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Relevance to journal scope
- Originality and novelty
- Technical accuracy
- Methodological soundness
- Quality of analysis
- Clarity and organization
- Language quality
- Validity of conclusions
- Ethical compliance
- Reference quality
Review Timeline
IRJCEE aims to maintain an efficient and timely review process.
Estimated Review Timeline:
- Initial Screening: 2–4 days
- Plagiarism Check: 1–2 days
- Peer Review: 7–14 days
- Revision by Authors: 3–10 days
- Final Decision: 2–5 days
- Publication After Acceptance: In current or upcoming monthly issue
The actual timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and revision requirements.
Confidentiality in Review
IRJCEE maintains strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
- Reviewer identities remain confidential
- Author identities remain confidential during review
- Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
- Review content is not disclosed to third parties
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest related to the manuscript.
In such cases, alternative reviewers or editors will be assigned to maintain fairness and neutrality.
Ethical Review Standards
All manuscripts are reviewed in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics and academic integrity standards.
Any suspicion of:
- Plagiarism
- Duplicate submission
- Data manipulation
- Ethical misconduct
will be investigated before further processing.
Final Decision Authority
The Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Rajesh Kumar, holds the final authority regarding acceptance, rejection, revision, and publication decisions.
All editorial decisions are final and based on academic merit, reviewer input, and journal standards.