Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Research in Communication and Embedded Electronics follows a structured and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, technical accuracy, and academic relevance of published research. The journal publishes scholarly work in Electronics and Communication Engineering and follows ethical publishing standards.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the editorial team to determine whether they:

  • Fit the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Follow the journal’s author guidelines.
  • Meet basic academic and technical quality requirements.
  • Contain sufficient originality and research contribution.
  • Follow ethical and formatting requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors before peer review.

2. Plagiarism Check

Submitted manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism-detection tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate.

Manuscripts showing more than the permitted plagiarism level may be rejected in accordance with the journal’s plagiarism policy.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential as far as practicable.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on criteria including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Technical and scientific quality.
  • Clarity of objectives and methodology.
  • Validity of results and analysis.
  • Relevance to Electronics and Communication Engineering.
  • Quality of figures, tables, and supporting information.
  • Quality and relevance of references.
  • Overall contribution to the field.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Revise and Resubmit
  • Reject

The final decision is made by the editorial team after considering the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

6. Revision of Manuscripts

When revisions are required, authors should carefully address all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial office.

Authors may also be asked to provide a response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

7. Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication.

The journal’s author guidelines indicate an expected editorial decision timeframe of approximately 4–6 weeks from submission, although the actual period may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

8. Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and should not disclose or use unpublished information obtained during the review process.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. A reviewer may be replaced when a significant conflict exists.

10. Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to maintain academic integrity throughout the publication process