1 Introduction

Intelligent Electronics & Metrology (IEM) is an open-access scientific journal committed to publishing high-quality, original and innovative research in intelligent electronics, electronic systems, precision metrology, electromagnetic sensing and interdisciplinary related fields. Manuscript evaluation serves as the core foundation of the journal’s academic quality control, academic credibility and standardized open-access publishing.

These guidelines standardize the responsibilities, evaluation principles, assessment criteria, ethical norms and operational specifications for all invited reviewers. All reviewers must strictly abide by international academic publishing standards, journal review regulations and publication ethics to ensure the objectivity, fairness, accuracy and timeliness of the manuscript evaluation process. Reviewers’ professional judgments are critical to screening high-quality manuscripts, regulating academic norms and promoting the sustainable development of the research community.

2 Reviewer Eligibility & Responsibilities

2.1 Eligibility Requirements

Qualified reviewers of IEM shall be researchers and scholars with solid academic foundations and rich research experience in the corresponding research fields. Basic eligibility criteria include: holding a doctoral degree or associate/senior professional title; having published high-quality journal papers in related fields in recent years; and possessing independent academic judgment and rigorous scientific research literacy. Reviewers are selected based on their research expertise, academic influence and matching degree with the manuscript topic to ensure professional and targeted evaluation.

2.2 Core Responsibilities

Reviewers undertake the following academic obligations during the manuscript evaluation process:

(1) Accept or decline evaluation invitations timely according to personal research expertise and current academic schedule, avoiding blind acceptance or long-term delay of evaluation tasks.

(2) Evaluate manuscripts objectively and comprehensively based on professional knowledge and unified journal standards, and put forward true, accurate and constructive evaluation opinions.

(3) Strictly abide by confidentiality and ethical norms, and refrain from any behavior that violates academic impartiality and publication ethics.

(4) Complete the evaluation report within the specified time limit to ensure the efficient progress of the journal’s editorial and publishing process.

(5) Maintain academic neutrality, respect the research achievements of authors, and avoid arbitrary negation or excessive perfunctory evaluation.

3 Evaluation Ethics & Conflict of Interest Policy

IEM adheres to the principle of zero tolerance for unethical evaluation behaviors and strictly implements conflict of interest avoidance rules in line with international open-access journal standards.

3.1 Mandatory Recusal

Reviewers must actively decline the evaluation invitation and inform the editorial office immediately if any of the following conflict of interest situations exists:

(1) The reviewer has close cooperative relations, institutional affiliation, mentor-student relationship or kinship with any author of the manuscript.

(2) The reviewer has engaged in academic competition, interest dispute or controversial academic confrontation with the authors in the past three years.

(3) The manuscript content is highly similar to the reviewer’s ongoing or unpublished research projects, which may cause academic interest conflicts.

(4) Other situations that may affect the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation.

3.2 Ethical Prohibitions

All reviewers are prohibited from the following improper behaviors during the evaluation:

(1) Disclosing any unpublished manuscript content, evaluation process and evaluation results to third parties.

(2) Using the unpublished research data, methods and innovative ideas of the manuscript for personal research or project application.

(3) Deliberately delaying the evaluation progress, perfunctory evaluation, or putting forward unreasonable and non-academic revision requirements.

(4) Requesting authors to cite the reviewer’s personal papers or cooperate on research in exchange for favorable evaluation results.

(5) Accepting any form of material rewards, benefits and favors related to manuscript evaluation.

4 Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers shall comprehensively evaluate manuscripts from the dimensions of academic innovation, research rationality, data authenticity, technical completeness, academic standardization and journal adaptability, and make a fair judgment on the manuscript quality. The core evaluation indicators are as follows:

4.1 Academic Innovation

Evaluate whether the manuscript puts forward new theories, new methods, new technologies or new application results in the fields of intelligent electronics and metrology; whether it solves existing technical bottlenecks and academic pain points; and whether it has obvious academic breakthroughs and application value compared with existing published literature.

4.2 Research Rationality & Completeness

Verify the scientificity of the research design, the rationality of theoretical analysis, the validity of experimental schemes and the comprehensiveness of result discussion. Confirm whether the research logic is rigorous, the experimental data is sufficient and reliable, the conclusion is objective and credible, and the overall research content is complete and standardized.

4.3 Standardization & Normativeness

Evaluate whether the manuscript conforms to the journal’s writing format, structural specifications and academic writing standards; whether the professional terminology, symbols, formulas, charts and unit settings are accurate and unified; whether the references are complete, standardized and reasonably cited, without excessive self-citation or irrelevant citation.

4.4 Academic Compliance

Check the manuscript for academic misconduct such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, data falsification and tampering. Confirm that the research content does not involve intellectual property disputes, ethical risks and other non-compliant problems, and meets the basic requirements of academic publishing.

4.5 Journal Adaptability

Judge whether the manuscript research direction conforms to the journal’s scope of intelligent electronics and metrology, and whether the academic level and research value meet the journal’s publication standards.

5 Evaluation Decision Types & Instructions

Reviewers shall select a reasonable evaluation decision based on comprehensive evaluation and give detailed supporting opinions. IEM sets four standard evaluation decisions in line with international academic norms:

5.1 Accept

The manuscript has significant academic innovation, complete and standardized research content, reliable data, rigorous logic, and fully meets the journal’s publication requirements. No revision or only minor fine-tuning of format and wording is needed, and the manuscript can be published after editorial verification.

5.2 Minor Revision

The manuscript has good research value and qualified overall quality, with no major defects in research design, data and conclusions. Only minor revisions are required, such as optimizing expression, supplementing individual references, adjusting chart formats, and modifying individual logical details. The manuscript can be accepted after authors complete targeted revisions and the editorial team verifies the revision quality.

5.3 Major Revision

The manuscript has certain research innovation and conforms to the journal’s scope, but has obvious deficiencies in research depth, experimental verification, result discussion or literature summary. It is necessary for authors to supplement experimental data, optimize research methods, enrich result analysis, revise logical defects and supplement core references. The revised manuscript will be submitted for secondary evaluation, and the final admission result will be determined based on the revision quality.

5.4 Reject

The manuscript is rejected for the following main reasons: serious lack of academic innovation, inconsistent with the journal’s research scope, major defects in research design and experimental data that cannot be remedied, serious academic non-compliance problems, or low overall academic level that does not meet the journal’s basic publication standards. Reviewers need to clearly state the objective reasons for rejection in the evaluation report.

6 Evaluation Report Requirements

A standardized, detailed and constructive evaluation report is the core basis for editorial judgment and author revision. All evaluation reports must meet the following specifications:

(1) Objective and Detailed Evaluation: Summarize the academic advantages and innovations of the manuscript, and clearly point out existing problems and deficiencies in a targeted manner, avoiding generalized, perfunctory or extreme comments.

(2) Constructive Revision Suggestions: Put forward specific, operable and professional revision opinions for the existing problems of the manuscript, rather than simple negation. For major defects, clearly explain the improvement direction and supplementary requirements.

(3) Hierarchical and Logical Expression: The evaluation content is divided into overall evaluation and detailed revision comments, with clear hierarchy and rigorous logic. Itemized comments are recommended for targeted modification of manuscript content.

(4) Neutral and Respectful Tone: Maintain a rigorous and academic tone, respect the authors’ research efforts, avoid arbitrary criticism and subjective prejudice, and ensure the fairness and professionalism of the evaluation.

7 Evaluation Timeframe & Progress Management

To ensure the efficient and standardized operation of journal open-access publishing, IEM has formulated unified evaluation time limit specifications:

(1) Reviewers shall confirm acceptance or recusal of the evaluation invitation within 48 hours after receiving the invitation email.

(2) All formal evaluation reports must be completed and submitted within 14 days from the date of invitation confirmation.

(3) For special circumstances that require delayed submission, reviewers shall actively apply for an extension to the editorial office in advance, with a maximum extension of 7 days. Unreasonable delay and overdue submission without notification will be recorded in the reviewer credit file.

(4) Long-term unresponsive evaluation invitations and repeated overdue evaluations will affect the reviewer’s subsequent invitation qualification of the journal.

8 Confidentiality & Data Security

As an open-access journal, IEM strictly protects the pre-publication academic confidentiality and intellectual property rights of manuscripts. Reviewers shall abide by lifelong confidentiality obligations:

(1) Do not forward, copy, download or spread the unpublished manuscript in any form, and do not use the manuscript content for any academic or commercial purpose before official publication.

(2) Do not discuss the manuscript content and evaluation results with irrelevant personnel, including academic peers and team members without evaluation authorization.

(3) After completing the evaluation task, delete all local manuscript files to ensure no leakage of manuscript data and research ideas.

(4) The confidentiality obligation is permanently valid and will not terminate with the completion of evaluation, manuscript admission or rejection.

9 Evaluation Quality Assessment & Incentive Mechanism

IEM establishes a long-term reviewer quality assessment system to standardize evaluation behavior and reward high-quality evaluation work:

(1) The editorial team will comprehensively assess the evaluation quality, timeliness, professionalism and objectivity of each reviewer’s work.

(2) Outstanding reviewers with high-quality, efficient and professional evaluation performance will be included in the journal’s excellent reviewer database, awarded annual honorary certificates, and given priority in academic cooperation and editorial communication.

(3) For reviewers with perfunctory evaluation, repeated delay, unethical evaluation behaviors or violation of evaluation specifications, the journal will suspend or cancel their reviewer qualification according to the severity of the situation.

10 Supplementary Provisions

These Reviewer Guidelines are formulated in accordance with international open-access academic publishing norms and IEM journal management regulations. The journal editorial office reserves the right of final interpretation and timely revision of these guidelines. All reviewer evaluation behaviors shall be subject to the latest updated version of the guidelines. If reviewers have any questions about the evaluation specifications and ethical norms, please contact the editorial office for consultation in a timely manner.