IEEE OJAP combines the rigor of peer review with the speed of open-access publishing, aiming at a submission to publication time equal to 4 – 6 weeks, based on a rapid review process which takes on average 2-3 weeks.
The articles in this journal are peer-reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual. Each published article is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers using a single-blind peer-review process, where the identities of the reviewers are not known to the authors, but the reviewers know the identities of the authors. Articles will be screened for plagiarism before acceptance. An overview of the publishing process timeline is provided below.
Reviewers are essential in maintaining the high quality and integrity of publications in IEEE OJAP. Their expertise and thoughtful feedback help ensure that each manuscript meets the rigorous standards expected by the IEEE community. Typically, OJAP reviewers should have published several IEEE journal papers and possess prior experience in peer review. This criterion upholds the standard of review quality, allowing all submissions to receive fair, constructive, and informed evaluations.
If you would like to serve as a reviewer of the IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation, please contact the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Zhongxiang Shen, at
Reviewer Guideline and Ethics
Thank you for volunteering to serve as a reviewer for the IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation (OJAP). Our goal is to maintain a fair, rigorous, and timely peer review process that supports authors and upholds the integrity of scientific publishing. Your expertise and commitment are essential to maintaining the quality and reputation of our journal.
This guide outlines the key expectations, responsibilities, and best practices for reviewers. Whether you are a first-time reviewer or an experienced expert, we hope it provides clear guidance to support you in carrying out your review assignments effectively.
- Objectivity and Impartiality
- Your review should be based on the technical merits, novelty/significance, relevance, and presentation of the manuscript, without consideration of the authors’ identities, affiliations, or backgrounds
- Avoid personal bias, whether favorable or unfavorable, toward particular authors or institutions.
- If you are unable to provide an unbiased evaluation due to prior interactions with the authors, strong views on the subject matter, or any form of conflict of interest, you are expected to decline the review or inform the Associate Editor.
- Recommendations should be justified by reasoned arguments, supported by evidence from the manuscript and relevant literature.
- Promptness and Thoroughness
- Reviews should be submitted before the deadline. If you foresee a delay, notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Assistant in advance.
- Examine all parts of the manuscript thoroughly, from the abstract to the reference list, and everything in between.
- Provide detailed, objective, and constructive comments to the authors respectfully. A high-quality review should include the following:
- highlights the article’s strengths and contributions
- points out significant flaws, unclear arguments, or weaknesses
- offers suggestions for improvement (e.g. further experiments and comparisons, clarifications, reorganization etc).
- For revision and resubmission, compare carefully against the authors’ responses and check whether the revisions address the major concerns.
- Use a clear structure and numbered points to guide the authors and the Editors.
- Anonymity & Communication
- The reviewer's identity should remain anonymous to the authors.
- Do not include your name, email, signatures, or any identifying clues in your review text or when you add comment or note on the manuscript file.
- If there is a need to contact the authors (e.g. for clarification or missing items), please request the Associate Editor or Editorial Assistant to do so on your behalf.
- Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
- Treat the manuscript and all supplementary materials as strictly confidential until they are published.
- Do not use the ideas, data, or methods in the manuscript for your own research before publication.
- Avoid conflict of interest. You should decline the review or inform the Associate Editor in advance if you have any of the following relationships with the authors:
- Recent or ongoing collaboration
- Shared institutional affiliation
- Advisor / advisee relationship
- Financial interest or competition
- Other relationship or circumstance that might reasonably raise doubts about your impartiality
- If during reviewing you become aware of potential ethical concerns such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, alert the Associate Editor with evidence confidentially.
- Do not pressure authors to cite your own work unless it is immediately relevant and beneficial, and carefully justify its relevance in your comments. The Editorial Board reserves the right to ask the reviewer to remove inappropriate citation requests from the review.
What makes a good review?
- Begin your review with a brief summary of the manuscript, your overall evaluation and recommendation.
- Then, present major comments on core issues in technical merits, novelty, significant flaws, unclear arguments, or weaknesses,
- Make minor comments such as small corrections, clarity suggestions, typos, formatting issues.
- Conclude the review with suggestions for improvement e.g. further experiments and comparisons, clarifications, reorganization.
- Be respectful and professional in tone. Focus on objective critique and avoid any personal remarks, harsh language, or sarcasm.
- Before submitting, check that your review files (PDF or Word) do not contain embedded author metadata or revision history revealing your identity.
- Complete all required fields on the review score sheet.
