Reviewer Guidelines

The International Journal of Computer Engineering and Embedded Technologies relies on the expertise and diligence of its peer reviewers to maintain the quality, originality, and integrity of published research. These guidelines are provided to assist reviewers in conducting fair, thorough, and constructive evaluations, in accordance with the standards expected by international abstracting and indexing bodies, including Scopus and Web of Science.

Role of the Reviewer

Peer review is central to scholarly publishing. Reviewers assist the editorial team in determining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication and, through their comments, help authors strengthen the technical quality, clarity, and rigor of their work. Reviewers act as impartial, subject-matter experts and are expected to evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific and technical merit.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts sent for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript, or any part of it, with anyone other than the assigned handling editor, without prior authorization. Reviewers must not use unpublished data, methods, or ideas contained in a manuscript for their own research or personal advantage at any stage, before or after publication.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline a review assignment if they have a recent collaboration or co-authorship with any of the authors; a shared institutional affiliation with any of the authors; a personal or professional relationship, positive or negative, that could affect their objectivity; or any financial or competing interest in the outcome of the manuscript. Any such conflict, even if uncertain, should be disclosed to the editorial office promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

Timeliness

Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to complete their review within the timeframe communicated by the editorial office, typically within three to four weeks. A reviewer who anticipates being unable to meet this timeline, or who no longer wishes to complete the review, should notify the editorial office as early as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be identified without unnecessary delay to the author.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess each manuscript against the following criteria:

Originality and Novelty — Does the manuscript present a genuine, original contribution to computer engineering or embedded technologies, and is it clearly differentiated from existing published work?

Technical Soundness — Is the methodology, system design, experimental setup, or theoretical framework valid, appropriately described, and free of significant technical flaws?

Validity of Results — Are the results, data, and analysis presented accurately, and do the conclusions follow logically from the evidence provided?

Literature Review — Does the manuscript adequately position itself within the existing body of research and cite relevant prior work in the field?

Clarity and Structure — Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and technically precise, with figures, tables, and equations presented appropriately?

Significance — Does the work offer meaningful value or advancement to the field of computer engineering and embedded systems?

Ethical Compliance — Does the manuscript raise any concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or undisclosed conflicts of interest?

Conducting the Review

Reviewers are expected to provide a detailed, evidence-based written evaluation rather than a brief or general assessment. Comments should be specific, referencing sections, figures, equations, or claims within the manuscript where concerns or strengths are identified. Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or acceptability of the work and minor issues such as typographical errors, formatting inconsistencies, or suggestions for improved clarity.

Tone and Conduct

Reviews must be objective, professional, and constructive at all times. Comments should critique the work, not the author. Personal criticism, dismissive remarks, or unprofessional language are not acceptable under any circumstances, regardless of the reviewer's assessment of the manuscript's quality.

Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations to the handling editor: accept without changes, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject and resubmit, or reject. The recommendation should be consistent with, and clearly supported by, the detailed comments provided.

Identifying Undisclosed Issues

Reviewers are asked to flag any suspected plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate or overlapping publication, data fabrication or falsification, or any other ethical concern to the handling editor immediately, rather than reflecting it only in the general recommendation, so that the matter can be investigated appropriately by the editorial team.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may include comments intended solely for the editor, separate from those shared with the author, where sensitive concerns, such as suspected misconduct, need to be raised without being visible to the author at that stage.

Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts

Where a manuscript is returned for revision, the original reviewers are typically asked to re-evaluate the revised version and the author's point-by-point response to confirm that prior concerns have been adequately addressed, within a similarly reasonable timeframe.

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the time and expertise contributed by its reviewers and maintains a record of reviewer contributions, which may be acknowledged periodically, subject to the reviewer's consent, in keeping with standard practice for peer-reviewed journals.