Computers and Electrical Engineering: Indexing, Scope and Published Papers

Reviewer comments and rejection reasons for Computers and Electrical Engineering

18 feedback entries shared anonymously by researchers who submitted to this journal. Names and manuscript titles are always removed.

Decisions: acceptance, revision and rejection

What reviewers commented on

Reviewer comments and editor decisions received

• RejectedShared anonymously by a researcher
  After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal, and I must therefore reject it. We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to Computers and Electrical Engineering and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
• RejectedNovelty and contributionHigh submission volume / priorityShared anonymously by a researcher
  Comments from the Editors and Reviewers: Although your manuscript falls within the aim and scope of this journal, it is being declined due to lack of sufficient novelty. We receive a much larger number of papers than we are able to accept.
• RejectedNovelty and contributionMethodology and technical qualityExperiments and parametersShared anonymously by a researcher
  After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal, and I must therefore reject it. The paper is returned to authors after an editorial review mainly due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) The algorithmic/conceptual/application-related contributions are not sufficiently significant relative to the state-of-the-art (SOTA) li… read more

  terature. 2) Comparison is not done or done against old/original algorithms instead of the recent algorithms. 3) The scientific contribution is not clearly presented (this includes poor use of English language) or insufficient in the field of AI. 4) No proper non-parametric statistical analysis has been used to support the results presented. 5) For an application-oriented paper, proper analysis/comparison must be undertaken to explain why the proposed algorithm performs well on the specific problem at hand in comparison to the recently presented methods for solving the same problem (by using any method). 6) Authors need to tune parameters of all methods fairly. Tuned hyper-parameter values should be indicated. If needed, a separate supplemental file can be used. 7) Details of the data used and data partitions should be explained. 8) For an application-oriented paper, proper analysis/comparison must be undertaken to explain why the proposed algorithm should do well on the specific problem at hand in comparison to the best methods for solving the same problem paying attention to the methodologies. Public domain datasets are to be used, if available, so that fair comparisons will be possible. ) As this problem has been actively investigated in the recent past, authors need to compare the results against the best relevant works/results from REPUTABLE sources (including CAEE) tackling the same (and very similar) problem by any method and preferably using public domain benchmarks. This aspect is a major concern.
• RejectedSimilarity / plagiarismShared anonymously by a researcher
  In reviewing your manuscript, I discovered that there are sections which seem to be unoriginal, having appeared in previously published work(s). In this case, the overlap goes beyond the normal occurrence of standard phrases in your field. For this reason, your manuscript cannot be considered for publication. For more information, please refer to the comments below. It is the policy of Computers a… read more

  nd Electrical Engineering to publish new and original work. Every manuscript should present some new results or insights and be written in an author's own words. Unless you provide a legitimate explanation for the large amount of textual overlap between your manuscript and the abovementioned previously published work(s), this manuscript will not be reconsidered for publication.
• Outcome not statedComplexity, scalability and limitationsShared anonymously by a researcher
  The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before conclusion.
• Outcome not statedComparison with recent workShared anonymously by a researcher
  The authors should consider more recent research done in the field of their study (especially in the years 2021 and 2022 onwards)

Shared experiences of individual submissions; they do not represent the journal's official policy.