IEEE Reviewer Guide: Peer Review Process and Steps

An IEEE reviewer is an active technical expert who volunteers to evaluate submitted manuscripts for IEEE journals, transactions, magazines, and conferences to uphold scholarly rigor and publication integrity. Peer review in IEEE is operated by individual IEEE societies and editorial boards, governed centrally under the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board (PSPB) Operations Manual. For researchers entering electrical engineering, computer engineering, and semiconductor physics, serving as a reviewer provides direct engagement with pre-publication literature and contributes to editorial decision-making.

Manuscripts submitted across IEEE publications undergo initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial staff before assignment to an Associate Editor. Once assigned, papers are sent to a minimum of two independent, qualified reviewers. This guide explains how to set up reviewer qualifications, navigate single- and double-anonymous evaluation workflows, structure formal reviewer reports, and maintain strict compliance with IEEE ethical codes.

Purpose of the IEEE Review Report

The primary purpose of an IEEE review report is to provide an objective, evidence-based assessment of a manuscript’s technical contribution, validity, and presentation quality. The report serves two distinct audiences with separate needs:

• The Editor: Needs a clear, decisive evaluation of whether the manuscript meets the publication’s scope, standards, and novelty thresholds, accompanied by a confidential recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject).
• The Authors: Require constructive, detailed feedback that identifies conceptual errors, experimental limitations, unclear derivations, or missing citations, enabling them to improve their research regardless of the final editorial decision.

Reviewers assess whether the manuscript advances the state of the art, provides sufficient reproducible detail, and aligns with established conventions such as IEEE reference format. Reviewers are not expected to copyedit grammar line-by-line, but they must identify sections where language or organizational flaws obscure the underlying engineering contribution.

Structure of an IEEE Peer Review

An effective IEEE reviewer report is organized into logical sections that distinguish high-level evaluation from line-by-line technical commentary. Reviewers enter their comments directly into editorial portals such as ScholarOne Manuscripts or Editorial Manager, which divide feedback into confidential remarks for the editor and comments for the authors.

1. Executive Summary and Overall Impression: Open with a concise summary (typically 1–2 paragraphs) describing what the manuscript proposes, its stated novelty, and the reviewer’s high-level assessment of its strengths and weaknesses.
2. Evaluation of Technical Soundness: Assess theoretical formulations, mathematical models, simulation parameters, and hardware validation. State clearly whether the claims are supported by experimental data or theoretical proof.
3. Literature Context and Benchmarking: Evaluate whether the literature review is comprehensive and fair. Highlight whether existing baseline methods are omitted or whether prior work is properly attributed.
4. Major Revisions (Essential Requirements): Detail substantial issues that must be resolved before publication. These include flawed assumptions, invalid control experiments, unaddressed edge cases, or missing statistical validation.
5. Minor Revisions (Clarifications and Presentation): List minor corrections such as ambiguous figure labels, notation inconsistencies, typographical errors, or formatting adjustments.
6. Confidential Comments to the Editor: Provide candid context regarding the overall recommendation, suspected overlap with known literature, or ethical concerns that should not be shared directly in author-facing comments.

How to Become an IEEE Reviewer

Prospective reviewers can volunteer their expertise through several established administrative pathways:

• Create a ScholarOne Profile: Register on the submission site of the specific IEEE journal or transactions relevant to your expertise. Accurately select subdiscipline keywords matching the IEEE Taxonomy to ensure automated reviewer-matching algorithms locate your profile.
• Contact Associate Editors and Editors-in-Chief: Introduce your background, current institution, and specific subfield expertise via email to the editorial office of relevant IEEE publications.
• Engage with IEEE Technical Committees: Active participation in IEEE society conferences, workshops, and technical committees establishes scholarly visibility, leading to direct invitations from session organizers and editors.
• Publish in IEEE Outlets: Authors who have published in IEEE transactions are routinely indexed into reviewer pools for subsequent related submissions.

A Short Annotated Example Review

Below is an annotated excerpt illustrating how to formulate rigorous, constructive comments in an IEEE technical review:

[Section: Evaluation of Technical Soundness]
“The author proposes a dual-slope capacitive sensor interface in Section III. While the mathematical derivation for charge redistribution in Equation 4 is formally correct, the simulation results in Figure 6 assume an ideal operational amplifier with infinite gain-bandwidth product. In actual 28 nm CMOS implementations, parasitic capacitance at node X introduces phase margin degradation exceeding 18 degrees at 200 MHz. The authors must supply transient simulations including parasitic extraction (RC extraction) to substantiate the claimed linearity.”
Annotation: Sourced and actionable; pinpoints specific equations and figures while explaining why ideal assumptions undermine physical claims.

[Section: Literature Context and Benchmarking]
“The comparative performance table (Table II) compares the proposed low-noise amplifier only against architectures published prior to 2019. It omits state-of-the-art designs operating in the same 5 GHz frequency band. The authors should benchmark their noise figure (NF) and power consumption against recent IEEE Solid-State Circuits Letters benchmarks.”
Annotation: Contextualizes the work against state-of-the-art standards without coercing the author to cite personal papers.

Common Mistakes in IEEE Reviews

IEEE editorial boards frequently flag common reviewer errors that undermine the integrity and efficiency of the review cycle:

• Citation Coercion: Requesting that authors cite the reviewer’s own publications without clear, demonstrably necessary scientific justification. IEEE PSPB policy strictly classifies coercive citation suggestions as unethical misconduct.
• Breach of Confidentiality: Sharing manuscript text, data, or figures with colleagues, students, or external collaborators without explicit prior authorization from the Editor-in-Chief.
• Using Public AI Tools: Submitting manuscript text or unpublished data into public large language models (LLMs) or generative AI tools to draft review comments, which violates IEEE confidentiality agreements and data ownership rules.
• Unacknowledged Conflicts of Interest: Failing to recuse oneself when assigned a manuscript authored by a recent collaborator, departmental colleague, or former advisor. Reviewers should consult the IEEE conflict of interest disclosure standard whenever uncertainty arises.
• Vague or Dismissive Feedback: Submitting brief, non-specific verdicts such as “the paper is good” or “the method is incorrect” without providing specific line numbers, equation references, or technical reasoning.

IEEE Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a completed review report in ScholarOne, verify each item on this operational checklist:

• Expertise Alignment: Confirmed the manuscript falls within your technical competence.
• Independence: Verified no professional, financial, or personal conflict of interest exists with any author.
• Originality: Evaluated whether the technical contribution is novel compared to published literature.
• Soundness: Verified theoretical derivations, empirical proofs, and statistical metrics.
• Benchmarking: Confirmed comparative metrics and baselines reflect contemporary research.
• Constructive Tone: Ensured all remarks remain professional, objective, and depersonalized.
• Ethical Screening: Checked for signs of duplicate submission, data manipulation, or plagiarism, referencing IEEE authorship guidelines where applicable.
• Consistency: Confirmed the confidential recommendation to the editor aligns logically with the detailed remarks provided to authors.

Discipline Differences Across IEEE Societies

While the IEEE PSPB Operations Manual sets overarching standards, peer review mechanics vary across different societies and publications within IEEE:

Feature / Dimension	Single-Anonymous Review	Double-Anonymous Review
Reviewer Awareness	Reviewer sees author names and institutional affiliations	Reviewer does not see author names or affiliations
Author Awareness	Author does not see reviewer identity	Author does not see reviewer identity
Primary Venues	Most IEEE Transactions, IEEE Access, IEEE Magazines	IEEE Signal Processing Society, selected IEEE Computer Society tracks (IEEE double-blind peer review)
Turnaround Benchmark	Standard: 4–8 weeks; Expedited (IEEE Access): 7–14 days	Standard: 6–10 weeks
Manuscript Anonymization	Authors submit standard camera-ready or unblinded draft	Authors must omit author lists, funding acknowledgments, and self-identifying citations

Reviewers must check the specific society’s Author Guide prior to evaluating a manuscript to adhere to blind review protocols and specific scoring rubrics.

FAQ

How many reviewers are required for an IEEE manuscript?

Under IEEE policy, every submitted article must be reviewed by a minimum of two independent, qualified reviewers before an editorial decision can be rendered.

Can an IEEE reviewer recommend rejection based solely on English language quality?

No. IEEE guidelines instruct reviewers not to reject a paper solely due to language limitations if the technical substance is sound. Reviewers should recommend language polishing or professional editing while focusing their evaluation on the engineering contribution.

What should a reviewer do if they suspect plagiarism or duplicate submission?

Reviewers should immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief via confidential communication in the submission system, citing specific overlapping published sources. Reviewers must not accuse authors publicly in the author-facing comments.

Are IEEE reviews recognized for professional credit?

Yes. Reviewers can connect their ScholarOne accounts to Web of Science (formerly Publons) and ORCID to receive verified public recognition for their peer review service without compromising manuscript confidentiality.

Sources

• IEEE Author Center. “Become an IEEE Reviewer.” URL: https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/submit-your-article-for-peer-review/become-an-ieee-reviewer/ (2026-11-08).
• IEEE Access. “Reviewer Guidelines.” URL: https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines/ (2026-11-08).
• IEEE Access. “Reviewer Best Practices.” URL: https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/reviewers/reviewer-best-practices/ (2026-11-08).
• IEEE Author Center. “About the Peer Review Process.” URL: https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/submit-your-article-for-peer-review/about-the-peer-review-process/ (2026-11-08).
• IEEE Publication Services and Products Board (PSPB). “PSPB Operations Manual Section 8.2.2: Peer Review.” URL: https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/author-rights-responsibilities.html (2026-11-08).