Peer review is vital to the quality of published research. Your submitted manuscript will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers whose feedback will contribute to the acquisitions editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject your manuscript for publication.
In addition, when appropriate, your book will be reviewed by series editors. For books in certain IEEE imprints, editorial board members and the Editor-in-Chief are also actively involved in the peer review process.
What is peer review and why is it important?
Peer review is defined as the “critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to [publications] by experts who are not part of the editorial staff.” Peer review ensures the integrity of science by excluding invalid or low-quality research.
How does it work?
IEEE policy requires at least two qualified reviewers evaluate a submitted manuscript before the acquisitions editor can reach a decision. (IEEE Publication Services and Products Board (PSPB) Operations Manual, Section 8.2.2.A.4)
- The acquisitions editor invites reviewers who are experts in your book’s subject matter to evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback.
- Reviewers help authors hone key points, identify and resolve errors, and generate new ideas.
- The reviewers’ feedback informs the book editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
The most common types of peer review are single-blind and double-blind review.
- In single-blind, the names of the reviewers are not shared with the author but the reviewers are aware of the author’s identity.
- In double-blind, neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity.
Both models ensure that the reviewer can give an honest and impartial evaluation of the article. Most IEEE publications use the single-blind review format.
What are acquisitions editors and reviewers looking for?
During the peer review process, acquisitions editors and reviewers look for:
- Scope: Is the manuscript in the right subject area?
- Novelty: Is this original material distinct from previous publications?
- Data: Are the data reported, analyzed, and interpreted correctly?
- Clarity: Are the ideas expressed clearly, concisely, and logically?
- Compliance: Are all ethical and publication requirements met?
- Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?