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

Review Ethics


The assigned reviewers remain anonymous during and after the review period. Communication between reviewers and authors is only possible through the editorial board.
Any article that a reviewer is asked to review should be kept confidential. Nothing related to the paper should be disclosed to others without the editor's permission.


The journal has a double-blind review policy. The identity of the reviewer cannot be revealed to the author. The identity of the author(s) should not be known to the reviewer(s).

Conflict of Interest

A reviewer may have a potential conflict of interest with an author when reviewing a paper, e.g.
The reviewer is a colleague of the author.
The reviewer has contributed to the completion of the paper.
The reviewer has a competitive relationship with the author in the same research area.
The reviewer adheres to an unbiased approach. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest with the assigned submission, the reviewer should make a declaration and must either resolve these conflicts or even reject the review and reassign the submission to someone else for review.

Timely Review of Manuscripts

Reviewers need to allow sufficient time for review and carefully adhere to the journal's deadlines. Competent reviewers are purposeful and diligent. They will take the time to thoroughly review even short manuscripts or papers that will not ultimately be accepted.

Adequate Reviewer Comments

A good reviewer will provide comprehensive and well-argued constructive feedback to the author. Even if a manuscript is rejected, the reviewer's feedback will help the author make specific improvements to the paper and enhance the overall scholarly research process for future papers. Reviewers are able to clearly identify the value, originality, and scholarly scope of a paper and make a recommendation on whether to accept the manuscript. Attention is paid to ethical issues such as violations of customary standards, humane treatment of animals or human subjects, or clear similarities between the reviewed manuscript and other published works (in short, plagiarism).