The entire paper review process is managed in ScholarOne. If you do not have a ScholarOne RA-P account, please create your account and credentials here.
Remark: Authors are submitting their paper through the IEEE Author Portal for RA-P. The IEEE Author Portal is connected to ScholarOne, and reviewers only need to login to ScholarOne (not to the IEEE Author Portal).
RA-P articles are peer-reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual. Each published article was reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers using a double-anonymous peer review process, where the identities of the reviewers and authors are not known to each other.
The paper review procedure of RA-P involves a recommendation prepared by a Senior Editor on the basis of peer reviews. The final decision on publication, sustaining or modifying this recommendation, is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.
Please respect the deadline!
As an author, you undoubtedly appreciate the importance of minimizing delays. Please provide detailed comments to the authors so as to support your recommendation. An appropriate review format should include: (1) a brief summary of the paper, to convey your understanding of the paper to the authors; (2) paper strengths and weaknesses that inform your opinion (but do not include your publication recommendation in the review text); and (3) a (possibly bulleted) list of more minor details, such as grammar or notation corrections, suggestions to improve figures, etc.
The following points are suggested for your comments:
Please supply any information that you think will be useful to the author for a revision, for enhancing the appeal of the paper, or for conveying to them the weak points or mistakes.
Do not identify yourself or your organization within the review text. The reviewer’s recommendation for acceptance or rejection should not be included in the comments to the author.
In your critical comments to the author(s), please be specific. If you find that the key contribution(s) of the paper are already known, please give references to earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If you say that the reasoning is incorrect or vague, please indicate specifically where and why. If you suggest that the paper be rewritten, give specific suggestions as to which parts of the paper should be deleted, amplified, or modified, and please indicate how.
Upon completion of the review process of a submitted RA-P paper, access to the Editor decision and to all anonymous reviews will be available to the reviewers through ScholarOne.
While each submitted RA-P paper must be self-contained and comprehensive without taking any supplementary material into account, supplementary materials are a very important feature of RA-P papers. They allow readers to understand details, offer opportunities for reproducibility, and provide readers additional opportunities to understand the contributions presented in the paper.
You can find a description of possible supplementary materials here.
In your review, please briefly comment on each supplementary file provided by the author(s). Each supplementary file is paired with a plain text file that describes the content. Are the supplementary material consistent with the paper content? Does it enhance the contribution of the work? If it is a video, how is the technical quality? Is it free of commercialism (or as free as possible in the interest of the paper and its quality)?
The general principle of the editorial work in RA-P is that Editors and Reviewers are not there to be inflexible judges; rather their role is to help authors write better papers. This is reflected in the review comments and recommendation reports, which are always constructive in their criticism, not just noting deficiencies but also highlighting strengths, and indicating how the paper can be improved. Any diminishing or disrespectful remark must be avoided.
You will have the possibility to introduce confidential comments for the Editorial Board’s eyes only. In these comments, you can put any information you believe is useful to assess the paper’s quality, which can’t be shared with authors (e.g., because it would breach the anonymity of reviews). You may also use it to concisely state your candid opinion about the paper (e.g., a definite suggestion for acceptance).
Conflicts of interest, whether actual, perceived, or potential, must be avoided. IEEE defines a conflict of interest as any situation, transaction, or relationship in which someone’s decisions or actions could materially affect that individual’s professional, personal, financial, or business concerns. A potential conflict of interest occurs when an individual might have a conflict of interest based on his or her responsibility to IEEE. A perceived conflict of interest happens when a third party might reasonably conclude that an individual’s private interests could improperly influence the performance of his or her responsibility to IEEE. An example of a conflict is when a reviewer evaluates an article written by an author with whom the reviewer frequently collaborates on research projects. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest should recuse themselves from the peer review process for that article.
The use of content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in a review of a RA-P submission is NOT allowed and prohibited.
The use of AI systems for editing and grammar enhancement is common practice and, as such, is generally outside the intent of the above policy. You can read more about RAS Generative AI Guidelines.
