The 2nd International Conference on Advanced Technology of Electrical Engineering and Energy

How to review


Peer review should be conducted in an ethical and responsive manner. Reviewers will be invited to review the manuscript with the title and abstract provided. Reviewers should respond to the invitation promptly after a quick review of the title and abstract. If for some reason (e.g., too busy) they are unable to undertake the review task, they should inform the editor promptly.
Peer reviewers are expected to give notice to the editor when these situations occur:
1. You are unable to finish peer review by the agreed-upon deadline.
2. You find the manuscript confusing or beyond your academic expertise.
3. You want to involve others in the review process.
4. You are unsure if there is a conflict of interest.
Reviewers will be asked to critically evaluate the manuscript based on important factors such as "originality, scientific soundness, integrity and quality of presentation, and English level" and to provide a detailed and constructive review report to the editor.


Review report

The review report should give constructive suggestions aimed at improving the paper in general. The invited reviewers are expected to provide detailed comments on the manuscript, covering the overall recommendations and the detailed comments in the review report. The review report should conclude with comments on each part of the paper, such as the title, abstract and references ...... If revisions to the manuscript are suggested, they should be specific to certain paragraphs or sentences.

How to review a manuscript?

Benefits of being a reviewer:
Establish connections with recognized experts in your field of expertise
Exercise your critical thinking skills 
Expand your knowledge and facilitate your further research practice
Keep up with the latest scientific trends in your area of expertise
Before accepting or declining the invitation, consider:
If the manuscript is compatible with your research area; whether you have sufficient time for a quality review; and whether you can complete the review within the agreed time; and whether there is a potential conflict of interest.
During the peer review, you should:
Keep all documents and correspondence confidential; notify the editor if there is a conflict of interest; inform the editor if for some reason anonymity cannot be maintained; notify the editor if there exists evidence of unethical behavior in the manuscript; provide objective, concise comments and suggestions for improvement; and refrain from using ideas or data obtained in any form prior to publication.

Your checklist for reviewing a paper.

Quality of presentation: 
-Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
-Does the abstract provide a summary of the paper?
-Does the abstract include the main issues and findings?
Structure and Length
-Does the paper have a complete and well-organized structure?
-Is the paper an appropriate length?
-Do the data support the conclusions?
-Does the Method target the main question(s) appropriately?
-Are the Results presented clearly and logically?
Figures and Tables
-Are they clearly and adequately described?
-Do they represent what the research is about?
-What do figures and tables add to the paper?
-Do the authors include proper references to published literature?
-Is referencing done correctly?
-ls the paper well written?
-Is the English understandable and readable?
Scientific Quality:
Novelty and Originality
-ls the research original and novel?
lmportance and Impact on the Research Area
-ls the research important to the field of research?
-What does the research add to the subject area?
Relevance to the Conference
-ls the question addressed by the research in line with the aim and scope of the conference?
-ls it attractive to the audience?
Completeness of Presentation
-Does the paper has an appropriate structure?
-ls the complete presentation and easy to read?

Your overall recommendation:

2.Accept with minor revisions
3.Revaluate with major revisions