The International Journal of Computer Engineering and Embedded Technologies follows a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This policy has been established in accordance with the standards expected by international abstracting and indexing bodies, including Scopus and Web of Science, to ensure the credibility, quality, and academic integrity of the research published in the journal.
Type of Peer Review
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, throughout the review process. This approach is designed to eliminate bias related to an author's identity, affiliation, gender, nationality, or prior publication record, and to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit and technical quality.
Peer Review Process
- Initial Editorial Screening — Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor to confirm that it falls within the aims and scope of the journal, meets basic formatting and ethical requirements, and demonstrates sufficient originality and technical soundness to proceed to review. Manuscripts that do not meet these baseline requirements may be rejected at this stage without external review.
- Plagiarism and Similarity Check — All manuscripts that pass initial screening are checked using standard plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts exceeding the journal's acceptable similarity threshold are returned to the authors or rejected, depending on the nature and extent of the overlap.
- Reviewer Assignment — Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent subject-matter experts in computer engineering or embedded systems. Reviewers are selected based on their domain expertise, publication record, and absence of any conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions. In cases where the two reviewers' recommendations differ significantly, a third independent reviewer is assigned to resolve the disagreement.
- Reviewer Evaluation — Reviewers assess each manuscript on the basis of originality and novelty of contribution, technical soundness and validity of methodology, clarity and completeness of the presentation, adequacy of literature review and citation of relevant prior work, significance of the results to the field of computer engineering and embedded technologies, and overall quality of English and technical writing. Reviewers document their evaluation using a structured review form and provide constructive comments intended to help authors improve their work, regardless of the final recommendation.
- Editorial Decision — Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions: accept without changes, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject and resubmit, or reject. The editor's decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with the reviewers' anonymized comments.
- Revision and Re-Review — Authors submitting a revised manuscript are required to provide a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation to confirm that concerns have been adequately addressed. The editor may request additional rounds of revision where necessary.
- Final Decision — The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over all publication decisions, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor's assessment, and compliance with the journal's editorial policies.
Review Timeline
The journal is committed to a timely and efficient review process. Initial editorial screening is typically completed within one week of submission. The first round of peer review is typically completed within three to four weeks. Authors are kept informed of the status of their manuscript at each stage of the process.
Reviewer Selection Criteria
Reviewers are invited based on demonstrated expertise in computer engineering, embedded systems, or a closely related technical domain, a verifiable record of academic or professional research activity, and no direct conflict of interest with the submitting authors, including recent co-authorship, shared institutional affiliation, or personal relationship. The journal maintains and continually expands a database of qualified reviewers drawn from its editorial board and the broader academic and industry community.
Reviewer Confidentiality and Conduct
Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are required to keep all submitted material confidential, refrain from using unpublished data or ideas from a manuscript for their own research or personal advantage, and provide objective, professional, and constructive feedback free of personal criticism. Any breach of confidentiality or misuse of privileged information by a reviewer is treated as a serious violation of the journal's ethical standards.
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest, financial, institutional, or personal, prior to accepting a review assignment. Editors handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, including submissions from their own institution or recent collaborators, recuse themselves and delegate the handling of the manuscript to another qualified editor.
Appeals and Disputes
Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal, written appeal to the editorial office, providing a detailed, scientific justification for reconsideration. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with an independent editorial board member where necessary, and a final decision is communicated to the author. The outcome of an appeal is final.
Editorial Independence
Editorial and peer review decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript and are made independently of any commercial, financial, or personal considerations. The journal does not permit editors or reviewers to influence decisions for reasons unrelated to scientific quality and integrity.
Continuous Improvement
The journal periodically reviews and updates its peer review policy and reviewer guidelines to remain aligned with international best practices and the evolving expectations of major indexing and abstracting services.