Standards Information Network
Peer Review Process

Peer review is required for endorsement or publication of all IEEE Standards Information Network products. Unlike the balloting process required for IEEE standards, there is no balance requirement or mandatory response to comments received during the peer review process. However, authors are required to consider the comments submitted by reviewers and implement changes if the concerns are valid. Peer review comments must also be submitted to the IEEE Standards Information Network's Managing Editor. If the Managing Editor, in consultation with engineers in the relevant field or society, believes that a peer review comment is valid, the Editor may require that the author collaborate with the reviewer to resolve outstanding issues.

The following outlines the peer review process:

Selection

a) Peer reviewers are solicited and selected prior to the final submission of the draft to the IEEE Standards Information Network. The names of potential peer reviewers can be obtained from various sources, including:

1. Submissions by the author (information is included on the IEEE Press Proposal Form)
2. Lists obtained from customer or membership databases
3. IEEE Standards Press peer review volunteers
4. Society or working group referrals

b) Potential peer reviewers are provided with the following information:

1. The title of the work (or a working title)
2. A short description of the scope and purpose of the work, including technical knowledge required
3. Peer review requirements explaining their role and offering examples of the type of input being solicited
4. A tentative schedule of when the peer review process will be conducted

c) Interested peer reviewers are then asked to submit biographical data that may be taken under consideration during the selection process. This information may include:

1. Technical knowledge/implementation
2. Industry use of technology (e.g., manufacturers, users, academia, government)
3. Geographic location (e.g., regional, domestic, foreign)
4. Market awareness
5. IEEE or other affiliation
6. Work with, or knowledge of, any associated standards
7. Published works or experience in publishing

d) Peer reviewers for each document are then stratified according to criteria such as those listed in item c). Between 3 and 7 reviewers are then randomly selected as final reviewers of the document.

Peer Review Requirements

Peer reviewers are:

a) Required to complete their review during the review period (usually between 4 and 6 weeks).

b) Requested to read the document and respond with comments submitted on a comment sheet (notes can be clearly indicated on the manuscript to reinforce any comment on the sheet).

c) Asked to submit comments that address issues such as:

1. The technical relevance/accuracy of information in the manuscript
2. The clarity or presentation of the information
3. The completeness of the information and coverage of the technology
4. Possible enhancements
5. Technological advancements or new applications
6. Weaknesses in rational or weaknesses in the technology that should be discussed

d) Asked to complete a marketing survey requesting information such as

1. Potential target markets
2. Marketing/design features that may be appealing
3. Description of potential users or uses of the product
4. Known competitive products or services
5. Complementary products or services
6. Associated consortia, symposiums, lecture series, etc.

Revision and review of the work

As stated above, the author is required to consider all comments submitted during the peer review process, but there are no requirements to address all comments. If valid comments are submitted, the author should work with the reviewers to address their concerns. If substantial changes are made to the document, peer reviewers are given the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. This second review period is usually much shorter than the original review (from 1 to 2 weeks).

Acknowledgment

Peer reviewers will be acknowledged in the front matter of the published work, where their names and affiliations are listed. Generally, no monetary compensation is offered, but a complementary copy of the published work may be distributed to each reviewer.

When the peer review process is complete, your manuscript will be edited by an IEEE Standards editor and the pages will be returned to you for a final review.

The manuscript is then sent to the printer and approximately six weeks later, it is published.

Additional information

If you would like additional information on our peer review process or would like to be considered as a peer reviewer for future IEEE Standards Information Network products, please send a detail email to product-support@ieee.org.