Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Introduction

The Electrical Engineering Technical Journal (EETJ) relies on the expertise of reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of the research it publishes. As a reviewer, you play a critical role in ensuring the journal’s scientific rigor, relevance, and ethical standards. This document outlines the expectations, responsibilities, and procedures for reviewers.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  1. Confidentiality
  • All manuscripts and supplementary materials shared for review are confidential.
  • Do not discuss the manuscript or its content with anyone without explicit permission from the editor.
  • Avoid using any unpublished information from the manuscript for personal gain.
  1. Objectivity and Impartiality
  • Provide an objective assessment of the manuscript based on its quality, originality, and relevance.
  • Avoid biases related to nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest that might affect your impartiality.
  1. Constructive Feedback
  • Provide clear and constructive comments to help authors improve their work.
  • Avoid personal or derogatory remarks.
  • Suggest ways to resolve major issues while respecting the authors' ideas and approaches.
  1. Timeliness
  • Adhere to the review deadline. If you cannot complete the review on time, inform the editor as early as possible.
  • If you feel unqualified to review the manuscript, notify the editor promptly.
  1. Ethical Considerations
  • Alert the editor if you suspect ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations in research involving humans or animals.
  • Notify the editor if you identify significant overlaps with previously published work.

Review Process

  1. Initial Invitation
  • You will receive an email invitation to review a manuscript.
  • Review the title and abstract to determine if the manuscript aligns with your expertise and availability.
  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly.
  1. Manuscript Evaluation

When reviewing the manuscript, focus on the following:

2.1 Originality

  • Does the manuscript present novel findings or insights?
  • Does it contribute significantly to the field of electrical engineering?

2.2 Relevance

  • Is the manuscript aligned with the scope and objectives of EETJ?
  • Are the research questions significant and relevant to the audience?

2.3 Methodology

  • Are the research methods appropriate and adequately described?
  • Are the experimental or computational techniques valid and reproducible?
  • Has the study adhered to ethical standards?

2.4 Results and Discussion

  • Are the results clearly presented and well-organized?
  • Are the data and analyses robust and reliable?
  • Does the discussion appropriately interpret the findings and compare them with prior research?

2.5 Clarity and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript well-written, clear, and logically organized?
  • Are the figures, tables, and references relevant and appropriately used?
  • Are there grammatical or typographical errors that need correction?

 

 

  1. Writing the Review Report
  • Use a respectful and professional tone.
  • Start with a brief summary of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • Address major and minor issues separately.

3.1 Major Issues

  • Highlight critical problems that must be addressed before publication.
  • Examples: flawed methodology, insufficient data, ethical concerns.

3.2 Minor Issues

  • Note smaller issues that do not significantly impact the study’s validity.
  • Examples: unclear sentences, formatting errors, minor inconsistencies in data presentation.
  • Provide specific suggestions for improvement.
  1. Recommendation

At the end of your review, provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are necessary, and the manuscript should be re-evaluated.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Explain your recommendation clearly to help the editor make an informed decision.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. Conflicts of Interest
  • Avoid reviewing manuscripts if you have a personal or professional relationship with the authors that could bias your judgment.
  • Examples of conflicts include:
    • Collaborations with the authors in the past three years.
    • Financial interests in the research outcomes.
    • Supervisory or mentor relationships with the authors.
  1. Misconduct and Plagiarism
  • Notify the editor immediately if you suspect:
    • Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
    • Fabrication or falsification of data.
  1. Ethical Standards in Research
  • Ensure that research involving humans or animals adheres to ethical guidelines.
  • Look for evidence of institutional review board (IRB) approval or equivalent ethical oversight.

Benefits of Reviewing

  • Professional Recognition: Your contribution as a reviewer enhances your professional profile.
  • Networking Opportunities: Engage with leading researchers and editors in your field.
  • Skill Development: Reviewing helps improve your critical thinking and research skills.

Tools and Resources

  1. Plagiarism Detection
  • EETJ uses specialized software to detect plagiarism. If you suspect plagiarism, highlight the relevant sections and provide details in your report.
  1. Language Support
  • If the manuscript requires extensive language editing, suggest professional editing services to the authors.
  1. Additional Resources
  • Visit the EETJ website for guidelines, ethical policies, and reviewer resources.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. How much time do I have to review a manuscript?
  • Typically, reviewers are given 2 to 3 weeks. If you need an extension, contact the editor.
  1. What if I discover a conflict of interest after accepting the review invitation?
  • Notify the editor immediately and recuse yourself from the review process.
  1. Can I involve a colleague in the review process?
  • No. If you feel unqualified, notify the editor to suggest alternate reviewers.
  1. How will my feedback be used?
  • Your comments and recommendations will guide the editor’s decision and help authors improve their work.

Contact Information

For further assistance, please contact:

Editorial Office Electrical Engineering Technical Journal (EETJ)
Middle Technical University
Email: eetj@mtu.edu.iq
Website: https://eetj.mtu.edu.iq/eetj/index.php/home/ContactUs

Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the Electrical Engineering Technical Journal. Your efforts ensure the publication of high-quality research that advances the field of electrical engineering.