Peer Review Policy

Journal Name: Journal of Advanced Electrical and Electronic Engineering (JAEEE)

Official Website: https://jaeee.org/index.php/JAEEE/index

Introduction and Commitment to Peer Review

The Journal of Advanced Electrical and Electronic Engineering (JAEEE) is committed to maintaining rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer-review practices to ensure the scientific quality, technical accuracy, originality, and academic integrity of published research.

The journal employs a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review system designed to promote impartial evaluation and minimize potential bias in editorial decision-making.

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening, and manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are referred for independent expert review.

The journal's peer-review procedures are informed by internationally recognized publication ethics principles, including the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and transparency practices promoted by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Type of Peer Review

JAEEE follows a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which:

Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers.
Reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.
Manuscripts are evaluated according to their scientific merit, technical quality, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.
Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial or institutional influence.

Authors must remove identifying information from the anonymized manuscript file and provide author details separately where required by the submission system.

The editorial office takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, although complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where research has previously appeared as a preprint or conference contribution.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial evaluation to determine its suitability for the journal.

The assessment considers:

Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Compliance with manuscript submission and formatting guidelines.
Originality and technical significance.
Scientific validity and methodological quality.
Completeness and accuracy of references.
Research ethics and publication integrity.
Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's minimum requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection and Independence

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent subject experts with appropriate academic qualifications, research experience, and technical expertise.

Reviewers are selected according to the following principles:

They possess relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
They have no actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest affecting impartiality.
They are not affiliated with the authors' institutions.
They are not members of the journal's Editorial Board.
They are capable of providing an objective, confidential, and constructive evaluation.

Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, relevant scholarly publications, professional experience, and the ability to assess the manuscript's scientific and technical content.

The editorial office is responsible for selecting reviewers and ensuring appropriate independence throughout the review process.

Peer Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality and Scientific Contribution

The manuscript should present original findings, innovative methodologies, meaningful technical developments, or significant contributions to existing engineering knowledge.

Technical Accuracy and Methodological Rigor

The research methodology, experimental procedures, mathematical models, engineering calculations, and analytical approaches should be scientifically appropriate and clearly explained.

Experimental and Simulation Validity

Where applicable, experimental designs, simulations, computational models, performance measurements, and validation procedures should be sufficiently described and supported by reliable evidence.

Results and Interpretation

Research findings should be presented accurately, interpreted logically, and supported by appropriate experimental, theoretical, or computational evidence.

Reproducibility and Research Transparency

Methods, datasets, algorithms, software configurations, and technical parameters should be reported with sufficient clarity to support independent evaluation and reproducibility where feasible.

Clarity and Organization

The manuscript should be logically organized, clearly written, and supported by appropriately presented figures, tables, equations, engineering diagrams, and technical illustrations.

Ethical Compliance

The research must comply with applicable standards of originality, authorship, data integrity, intellectual property, and research ethics.

References and Scholarly Context

References should be relevant, accurate, appropriately acknowledged, and sufficient to establish the scholarly context and significance of the research.

Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback that supports the improvement of scholarly work.

Review Timeline

JAEEE aims to maintain an efficient and timely peer-review process while ensuring that the quality and independence of manuscript evaluation are not compromised.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the extent of required revisions, and the need for additional technical evaluation.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review completion or acceptance period.

Authors may contact the editorial office through the official submission system for updates regarding manuscript status.

Revision and Editorial Decision-Making

Following the completion of peer review, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and determines the appropriate editorial action.

Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific, technical, and editorial requirements.
Minor Revision: Limited changes are required to improve clarity, presentation, or specific technical aspects.
Major Revision: Substantial improvements are required in methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting, or other scholarly components.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or contains deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must respond to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version within the period communicated by the editorial office.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or referred for additional evaluation when necessary.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized handling editor is responsible for the final editorial decision.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, technical validity, ethical compliance, and reviewer recommendations. Reviewers provide advice but do not independently determine acceptance or rejection.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and unpublished research materials are treated as confidential information.

Reviewers and editors must not:

Disclose manuscript content or reviewer reports to unauthorized individuals.
Share unpublished research findings without appropriate permission.
Use confidential manuscript information for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.
Distribute manuscripts or review materials outside the authorized editorial process.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the completion of peer review and editorial decision-making.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or competitive interests that could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

Employment or institutional relationships with the authors.
Recent research collaborations or supervisory relationships.
Financial interests connected to the research.
Personal or professional relationships.
Direct competition involving unpublished research.

Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must decline or withdraw from the review or editorial decision-making process.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Conduct evaluations objectively, professionally, and confidentially.
Accept assignments only when they possess appropriate subject expertise.
Complete reviews within the agreed period or promptly inform the editorial office of delays.
Provide constructive and evidence-based recommendations.
Avoid discriminatory, hostile, or personally inappropriate comments.
Identify potentially relevant published research that has not been appropriately acknowledged.
Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or other ethical concerns.
Refrain from using confidential manuscript information for personal advantage.
Disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Reviewers are expected to follow the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

COPE Reviewer Guidance: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

Handling of Ethical Concerns During Peer Review

Where concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated research data, unreliable experimental results, authorship disputes, or other potential research misconduct, the editorial office will assess the matter in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts may be consulted during the investigation.

COPE Flowcharts: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts

Depending on the seriousness of the concern, appropriate actions may include requesting clarification, seeking supporting evidence, obtaining additional expert assessment, requesting revisions, rejecting the manuscript, or referring the matter to a relevant institution.

Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before a final misconduct determination is made.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request explaining the grounds for reconsideration and providing relevant supporting evidence.

Appeals should identify a substantive procedural concern, factual error, potential conflict of interest, or other reasonable basis for reviewing the decision.

Where practicable, appeals are evaluated by senior editors who were not directly involved in the original editorial decision.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, conflicts of interest, or research ethics are handled fairly, confidentially, and according to the journal's established Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Transparency and Accountability

JAEEE is committed to maintaining transparent peer-review procedures and responsible editorial decision-making.

The journal provides information about its peer-review model, reviewer selection, editorial responsibilities, and manuscript evaluation criteria through its published policies.

Its peer-review practices are informed by the principles of transparency and ethical scholarly publishing promoted by DOAJ.

DOAJ Guidance: https://doaj.org/apply/guide/

Reference to COPE or DOAJ does not imply that JAEEE is formally affiliated with, endorsed by, or indexed in either organization.

Continuous Improvement

JAEEE periodically evaluates its peer-review procedures to improve editorial efficiency, reviewer performance, scientific quality, and the consistency of manuscript evaluation.

Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors may be considered when improving editorial policies, reviewer guidance, and manuscript processing procedures.

The journal remains committed to ensuring that peer review contributes meaningfully to the advancement of electrical and electronic engineering research.

Commitment to Editorial Independence

The Journal of Advanced Electrical and Electronic Engineering (JAEEE) maintains independent editorial decision-making based on scientific merit, technical quality, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, personal relationships, or ability to pay applicable article processing charges.

All manuscripts are expected to receive fair and objective consideration in accordance with the journal's established editorial standards.