Instructions for Reviewers



To ensure the quality of the papers that are published in “Electronics” journal, all material submitted to the journal is judged in an objective and fair manner, that is, all papers considered for publication undergo a peer review process. “Electronics” journal support double-blind review model (authors do not know who reviewers are and vice versa). Based on recommendations of at least two experts from the field, Editor-In-Chief makes the final decision about the acceptance of the paper.

The reviewer recommendation may be:

-Accept (the paper should be published as is),

-Accept with Minor Revisions (paper should be accepted after minor revisions are made which are checked by the Editor),

-Accept with Major Revisions (it is necessary to make major revisions of the paper and paper should be reviewed again),

-Reject (paper cannot be published in its current form due to the lack of originality, poor quality of writing, questionable technical soundness of the paper and/or low relevance to the readership; authors should make significant changes of the paper in order to be considered for publication in the future),

-Strong Reject (paper contains elements of the academic dishonesty such as plagiarism and should not be considered for the publication in the future).

Beside final recommendation, reviewers evaluate the quality of the paper with the following criteria:

-Originality: The reviewer should assess the originality of the method/concept/idea that is proposed in the paper and compare it to the current solutions in the field.

-Quality of Writing: The reviewer evaluates if the paper is well organized and clearly written, with clear tables and figures, satisfactory English, pertinent references, appropriate title and abstract etc.

-Relevance: With this criterion, the reviewer should assess if the paper is relevant for the readership of the journal and how much it contributes to the field.

-Technical Soundness: With this criterion a technical soundness (applicability in practice, correctness of the algorithm, scope of application, etc.) of presented solution is evaluated.

Each criterion is assessed by one of the following grades: Outstanding (the highest grade), Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor (the lowest grade). Also, the reviewer should identify the type of the paper (Original Research Paper or Review Paper). The reviewer is to be self-evaluated by using Reviewer’s expertise field with the following grades: Low, Medium, and High.

A timely return of the reviewers’ recommendations is crucial to the publishing process. Late return of reviews is the main element that delays publication. Reviews should be returned within the requested or agreed time frame, usually two to four weeks after acceptance to review the paper. Reviewer should return filled review form with the comments to the authors using the following e‑mail address:

Download Review Form.