International Journal of Electrical Energy and Control Systems (IJEECOS) follows a single-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of published articles.

What “Single-Blind” Means

In single-blind peer review:

Reviewers know the author(s) identity, affiliation, and manuscript details.

Author(s) do not know the reviewer(s) identity.
This helps protect reviewers and supports independent and honest feedback.

Review Workflow

1) Initial Editorial Screening

• After submission, the editorial office checks:
• Journal scope and topic relevance
• Basic formatting and completeness
• Ethical statements (conflict of interest, funding, etc.)
• Plagiarism / similarity screening (as per journal policy)
• Manuscripts that fail these checks may be returned for correction or rejected.

2) Handling Editor Assignment

A suitable Handling Editor / Section Editor is assigned based on the manuscript’s subject area.

3) Reviewer Selection

• Typically 2 independent reviewers are invited.
• Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and availability.
• If needed, additional reviewers may be invited.

4) Peer Review and Recommendations

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for:

• originality and contribution to the field
• technical correctness and clarity
• methodology and validity of results
• quality of figures/tables and references
• relevance to electrical energy and control systems

5) Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editor assessment, the decision may be:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

6) Revision and Re-Review

• Authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
• Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for verification, especially after major revision.

7) Final Decision

• The Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor makes the final decision.
  All decisions are based on academic merit and journal standards.
• Confidentiality
• Manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are confidential.
• Reviewers must not share, use, or distribute manuscript content.
• Conflict of Interest
• Editors and reviewers must declare conflicts (financial, personal, institutional, or competitive).
  If a conflict exists, they must decline the assignment.
• Reviewer Conduct
• Reviewers are expected to:
• provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback
• support comments with clear reasoning
• avoid personal criticism
• submit reviews within the agreed timeline
• Ethical Issues During Review
• If concerns arise regarding:
• plagiarism or duplicated work
• data fabrication/falsification
• unethical experiments
• manipulated images
  the journal may request clarifications, additional files/data, or take action as per the Publication Ethics Policy.
• Appeals and Complaints
• Authors may appeal a decision if they believe:
• a major factual error occurred, or
• the review process was unfair
• Appeals must be submitted in writing with clear justification. The journal may conduct an additional editorial review if required.