Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Computer Engineering and Embedded Technologies follows a structured, multi-stage peer review process designed to ensure the quality, originality, and technical rigor of every published article. The process outlined below reflects the standards expected by international abstracting and indexing bodies, including Scopus and Web of Science.

Step 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscript through the journal's online submission system, along with all required supporting documents, including a cover letter, author declaration, and any relevant ethical approval or conflict of interest disclosures, in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines.

Step 2: Editorial Office Check

The editorial office reviews the submission for completeness, verifying that the manuscript follows the required formatting and template, all necessary declarations and disclosures have been included, and the reference and citation style conforms to journal requirements. Incomplete submissions are returned to the author for correction before proceeding further.

Step 3: Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Every manuscript is screened using standard plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts exceeding the journal's acceptable similarity threshold are returned to the author or rejected outright, depending on the nature and extent of the overlap, in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy.

Step 4: Initial Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor evaluates the manuscript to confirm that it falls within the journal's Aim & Scope, meets a baseline standard of originality and technical soundness, and is suitable to proceed to external peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected at this stage without external review, and the author is notified promptly.

Step 5: Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial evaluation are assigned to a minimum of two independent subject-matter experts in computer engineering or embedded systems, selected on the basis of relevant expertise and the absence of any conflict of interest, in accordance with the journal's Peer Review Policy. The journal follows a double-blind review model, in which author and reviewer identities remain concealed from one another throughout the process.

Step 6: Independent Review

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript for originality, technical soundness, validity of methodology and results, adequacy of the literature review, clarity of presentation, and overall significance to the field, and submits a detailed written evaluation along with a recommendation to the handling editor.

Step 7: Editorial Assessment of Reviews

The handling editor considers all reviewer reports collectively. Where reviewer recommendations diverge significantly, a third independent reviewer may be invited to help resolve the disagreement before a decision is reached.

Step 8: Communication of Decision

The corresponding author is informed of the outcome, along with the reviewers' anonymized comments. The decision will be one of the following: accept without changes, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject and resubmit, or reject.

Step 9: Author Revision

Where revisions are requested, authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment. Revisions must be submitted within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

Step 10: Re-Review

Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers to confirm that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Additional rounds of revision may be requested where necessary before a final decision is reached.

Step 11: Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on publication, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor's assessment, and the manuscript's compliance with all journal policies.

Step 12: Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and typesetting. Authors are typically provided with a final proof for review before formal publication.

Step 13: Publication

Once production is complete, the article is formally published, assigned a persistent identifier such as a DOI, and made permanently and freely accessible in accordance with the journal's Open Access Policy.

Typical Timeline

The journal is committed to timely processing at every stage. Editorial office checks are typically completed within a few days of submission, initial editorial evaluation within one week, and the first round of peer review within three to four weeks, with authors kept informed of their manuscript's status throughout.