Chinese Journal of Electronics employs “double blind” reviewing, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.
The figure below shows the editorial and peer review process for manuscripts submitted to Chinese Journal of Electronics.
Once the author has submitted the manuscript, it goes through the following editorial process.
(1)The manuscript and associated materials are checked for quality and completeness by the editorial office staff.
(2)The manuscript is assigned to the editor in charge.
(3)The manuscript is assigned to an Area Editor. The assigned Area Editor decides whether or not to send the manuscript out for review.
(4)The Area Editor organizes the peer review process, and the Associate Editor selects reviewers.
(5)Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports to the Associate Editor, who makes a recommendation and sends it back to the Area Editor.
(6)The Area Editor makes a recommendation on whether the manuscript or a revised version of it could be published in the journal.
(7)If the decision is positive, the author will usually be asked to revise the manuscript and resubmit.
(8)The Editor-in-Chief makes the final acceptance decision and informs the author of the decision.
Process (1): Quality check
The editor in charge will check that the manuscript and associated materials are complete. Please see our guidelines for manuscript submission to make sure that the authors provide us with all necessary information at this stage.
Process (2)–(3): First editorial decision
After initial checks are complete, the manuscript is assigned to the Area Editor from editor in charge, who reads the paper and decides whether it should be sent for peer review. The Area Editor decides whether to send a manuscript for peer review based on the degree to which it advances our understanding of the field, the soundness of conclusions, the extent to which the evidence presented - including appropriate data and analyses - supports these conclusions, and the wide relevance of these conclusions to the journal’s readership.
Process (4)–(5): Peer review
If the Area Editor decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, he/she will organize the peer review process and send the manuscript to the Associate Editor. The Associate Editor will select and invite researchers with relevant expertise. Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and we work hard to ensure that the different technical and conceptual aspects of the work are covered. Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. Reviewers are not identified to the authors.
Process (6)–(7): Editorial decision
When all the reviewer reports are received, the Area Editor makes a recommendation and decides to either:
>Invite the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript to address specific concerns.
OR
>Decline publication, typically on grounds of either there being insufficient support for the conclusions or a reassessment of the level of interest or advance in light of the reviewers’ comments.
When the Area Editor considers the manuscript or a revised version is accepted for publication, he/she will send the recommendation to the Editor-in-Charge for approval. The Editor-in-Charge makes the final decision.
Process (8): Revise and resubmit
If the authors are invited to revise and resubmit manuscript, they should follow the instructions provided by the editor in charge in the email. Author(s) will be expected to provide:
>A revised version of the manuscript that addresses the issues raised by the editor and peer reviewers
>A response to each of the reviewers, replying to each of the points raised
>A cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors.
The revised manuscript should be submitted using the link provided in the decision email, and not as a new manuscript.
