1. Purpose of Peer Review
Review of Computer Engineering Research (RCER) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for evaluating the scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts before publication.
The primary objective of the peer review process is to ensure that published research contributes significantly to the advancement of computer engineering, computer science, artificial intelligence, software engineering, data science, cybersecurity, networking, embedded systems, and related technological disciplines.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to RCER undergo an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:
-
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
-
Originality and scholarly contribution;
-
Scientific and methodological rigor;
-
Compliance with journal formatting requirements;
-
Ethical standards and research integrity;
-
Language quality and clarity of presentation.
Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's basic quality or ethical requirements may be rejected without external review.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process
RCER employs a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Authors are required to remove all identifying information from submitted manuscripts to preserve anonymity.
Following successful editorial screening, manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific merit and provide recommendations to assist editors in making publication decisions.
The double-blind review process is intended to ensure objectivity, fairness, and impartiality while minimizing potential bias related to authors' affiliations, nationality, gender, academic status, or professional reputation.
4. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to conduct reviews professionally, objectively, and confidentially. Specifically, reviewers should:
-
Evaluate the originality and significance of the research;
-
Assess the appropriateness of research design, methodology, and analytical techniques;
-
Verify the accuracy and validity of results and conclusions;
-
Examine whether the findings are adequately supported by evidence and data;
-
Assess the relevance and completeness of cited literature;
-
Identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct where suspected;
-
Provide constructive comments that help authors improve their work.
Reviewers should complete reviews within the requested timeframe and notify the editorial office if they are unable to perform a review.
5. Editorial Decision-Making
Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and the independent judgment of the handling editor. Possible decisions include:
-
Accept;
-
Accept with Minor Revisions;
-
Major Revisions Required;
-
Reject with Resubmission Encouraged;
-
Reject.
The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor. Additional reviews may be requested when necessary.
6. Plagiarism Screening and Originality Verification
RCER is committed to publishing original and authentic research. All submitted manuscripts are screened for textual similarity using iThenticate through the Crossref Similarity Check service prior to publication.
The journal does not accept manuscripts containing:
-
Plagiarism;
-
Self-plagiarism;
-
Duplicate or redundant publication;
-
Data fabrication or falsification;
-
Manipulation of figures, images, or research results;
-
Citation manipulation.
Cases of suspected misconduct are handled in accordance with the recommendations and procedures established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
7. Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could influence, or appear to influence, the research, peer review process, or editorial decisions.
Authors are required to submit a conflict of interest statement during manuscript submission. Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.
8. Research Ethics and Integrity
RCER expects all research to be conducted in accordance with recognized standards of scientific integrity and responsible research practices.
Authors must ensure that:
-
Research findings are reported accurately and honestly;
-
Data are collected, analyzed, and presented responsibly;
-
Sources are properly cited and acknowledged;
-
Artificial intelligence tools, software, datasets, or automated systems used in the research are transparently disclosed where applicable;
-
Any ethical approvals required by institutions or regulatory authorities have been obtained before conducting the research.
Authors may be requested to provide supporting documentation related to ethics approval, research permissions, datasets, or source code during the review process.
9. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to RCER are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished material for personal, professional, or financial gain.
Information obtained through the peer review process must remain confidential before and after publication decisions.
10. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written explanation and supporting evidence to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are reviewed carefully and may involve consultation with independent editors or reviewers.
Complaints regarding editorial practices, peer review procedures, publication ethics, or conflicts of interest are handled in accordance with COPE Core Practices and ethical publishing guidelines.
11. Publication Ethics and Best Practices
RCER adheres to the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and supports responsible scholarly publishing. Authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers are expected to uphold the highest standards of honesty, transparency, accountability, and professionalism throughout the publication process.
The journal continuously works to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record and promote ethical research in computer engineering and related disciplines.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE Core Practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Crossref. (2024). Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Academic Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. In Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317–328). World Scientific.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103