Review

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board undergo a review procedure before acceptance, during which two independent reviews are prepared, usually by members of the Editorial Board or experts in the field. The review procedure is double-blind. Persons with institutional or other connections with the author do not review manuscripts.

The review procedure usually takes no more than three (3) weeks, and the author is informed about its outcome. IJEA reserves the right to not publish an article or return an article to the review procedure, provided there are compelling reasons. This holds even if the outcome of the review procedure was positive (e.g., in case there was a significant technological advance or change in standards during or after the completion of the review procedure). The peer review at IJEA proceeds in 9 steps with the following description:

1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). To facilitate authors, IJEA temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted paper is first assessed by the IJEA editorial staff. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the Journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including an evaluation of whether there is a major methodological or technical flaw. Every submitted paper which passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being sent for peer review. All articles submitted will be screened for plagiarism (maximum similarity 20%).

3. Appraisal by Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief checks whether the paper is appropriate for the journal, is sufficiently original, innovative, and significant for publication. The paper must demonstrate clear technical merit, relevance to engineering/automation, and a sound scientific approach. If the paper does not meet these initial criteria, it can be rejected without further review. If accepted, the author will be notified about the Article Processing Charge (APC) before the editor forwards the paper to reviewers.

4. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest considerations. The peer-review process at IJEA involves a community of experts in the narrowly defined fields of engineering, automation, robotics, smart systems, and related technological domains, who can conduct a fair and impartial review. Impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. The reviewer does not know the author's identity, and conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity. The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.

5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for suggestions of alternative reviewers when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted
The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major technical or methodological flaws are found at this stage, the reviewers may recommend rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper carefully, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter informing them of the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

After the revision, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.

If the paper was returned for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, the handling editor might conduct the follow-up review.

If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and are freely available as downloadable PDF files.