Guide for reviewers

Thank you for your interest in contributing to the peer-review process for Communications on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (CEEE). As a reviewer, your expertise and constructive feedback are integral to maintaining the journal's high standards and ensuring the dissemination of impactful research. Below, we provide detailed guidelines to assist you in conducting thorough and effective reviews.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are entrusted with evaluating the quality, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts. Your responsibilities include:

• Assessing the manuscript's technical rigor and relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Providing detailed, constructive feedback to authors to improve their work.
• Offering a recommendation for the editorial decision (accept, minor/major revision, or reject).

Your feedback should guide authors in enhancing the clarity, validity, and overall impact of their submissions.

Ethical Responsibilities

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for personal purposes.

Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews should be objective and free from personal biases. Critiques must focus on the manuscript’s content, avoiding discriminatory or unprofessional language.

Conflict of Interest

If you have a conflict of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or institutions), please inform the editorial office immediately and recuse yourself from the review.

Review Process

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following key aspects:

• Relevance: Is the manuscript aligned with the journal’s focus on electrical and electronics engineering?
• Originality: Does the work offer new insights, methodologies, or applications?
• Technical Quality: Are the research methods, analysis, and conclusions robust and credible?
• Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured and written clearly?
• Figures and Tables: Are the visuals clear, accurate, and supportive of the text?
• References: Are the citations relevant, up-to-date, and appropriately formatted?

Writing the Review

Your review report should include:

1. Summary: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, highlighting its purpose and contributions.
2. Strengths: Identify key strengths and positive aspects of the work.
3. Areas for Improvement: Offer specific, actionable suggestions to address weaknesses or gaps.
4. Recommendation: Clearly state your recommendation (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject), with justification.

Avoid vague or overly critical remarks without evidence. Constructive feedback is essential for authors to refine their work.

Review Timeline

Timely reviews are critical to the journal’s efficiency. Reviewers are typically given two to three weeks to complete their assessments. If you are unable to meet this deadline or require additional time, please notify the editorial office promptly.

Recognition of Reviewers

At CEEE, we value and acknowledge the contributions of our reviewers. While reviews are anonymous, we periodically recognize outstanding reviewers through certificates, acknowledgments, or other professional development opportunities.

Technical Assistance and Support

If you encounter any issues during the review process or require clarification, please contact the editorial office at ceee@mri-pub.com.

Final Note

Your role as a reviewer not only ensures the quality of published work but also strengthens the global research community. We deeply appreciate your dedication and expertise in supporting Communications on Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

Thank you for contributing to the advancement of knowledge in electrical and electronics engineering.

Editorial Office
Communications on Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Email: ceee@mri-pub.com