Peer reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the quality, consistency, and impact of the research published in the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. Below you may find guidelines and resources that will help you in your work as a reviewer. After accepting to review an original manuscript you are expected to submit your review within four weeks.

ScholarOne Manuscript Central

IEEE TAP uses ScholarOne Manuscript Central (S1M) as a means to receive and manage the review of all papers submitted for consideration of publication. To serve as a reviewer for the Transactions, you must have an account on S1M. If you do not have one, please go to the S1M website to create one using the instructions provided there. Complete the review forms online at S1M by filling in all the required information.
If you need to provide complex math or figures that cannot be easily included in the online "Comments for the Authors'' form, please create a PDF file with your comments and upload it to S1M.
S1Ms offers a downloadable guide and relevant FAQs for all reviewers' training needs. In addition, questions and suggestions can be submitted using the Support portal.

Download the ScholarOne Manuscripts Reviewer Guide
Visit SholarOne Manuscripts Reviewer Support website

Reviewer Recognition Service

IEEE has integrated Publons’ Reviewer Recognition Service across all IEEE ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M) sites. Publons allows academics to track, verify, and showcase their peer review and academic contributions for journals. ScholarOne allows users to seek credit for historical reviews already completed. You will need to select Yes to get recognition, and in case you don’t have a Publons profile, you will be prompted to create a free account.

The Reviewer Recognition Service also recognizes past reviews. A new queue called “Reviews Pending Publons Credit” will display in the Reviewer Center.

Reviewer Recognition provides a modern and rewarding peer review experience. In addition, this supports IEEE sourcing experts and motivated reviewers who improve the quality of our publications.

General guidelines

Once you have accepted the review invitation, you will be given access to the article. It is important for the outcome of the peer review process that your review be clear, consolidated, and very well-motivated.

You can start your evaluation with the following questions in mind.

• Is the manuscript sufficiently novel?
• Does the research contribute to the body of scientific knowledge in the field?
• Are the results presented important for the AP-S Community?
• Is the paper technically correct?
• Are the theoretical and/or experimental results of the paper accompanied by sufficient analyses, discussions and justifications?
• Is the presentation appropriate and is the manuscript written in clear, idiomatic English?
• Is previous related work adequately referenced?
• Is the existing body of relevant work acknowledged?

References. Reviewers claiming that a manuscript lacks sufficient novelty must provide reference to at least one relevant (and possibly very recent) paper that the reviewer would consider as a baseline reference to determine lack of sufficient novelty.

• Suggest references to be added – as long as they are technically relevant, i.e. not in order to increase the citation count of the reviewer or the Associate Editor.
• Suggest removal of references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed.

SI units. Confirm that only SI units and those units recognized for use with the SI are used to express the values of quantities. Equivalent values in other units are given in parentheses following values in acceptable units only when deemed necessary for the intended audience. A quick guide to the use of SI units is provided here.

Conference papers vs journal papers. [In the following, Editors refers to the Editor-in-Chief, the Track Editors, and the Associate Editors]

• TAP Editors and Reviewers are instructed to consider conference and journal papers as totally separate venues for publication.
• A full-length conference paper cannot simply be republished in TAP verbatim without “substantial” differences.
• Sometimes two different conference papers are “combined” into a journal paper. The resulting manuscript cannot be simply the union of the original articles, but it must have a substantial difference from the original articles.
• IEEE policy simply requires “substantial” differences, with the meaning of “substantial” being at the discretion of the Editors. Examples of “substantial” difference include, but are not limited to, addition of new results, but may also imply more details on the theory, implementation, measurements…
• Text and figures can in fact be exactly copied from the conference paper(s) into the journal paper. This is not double publishing. At least a slightly different title should be used for the journal paper, to describe the typically broader journal contribution and to avoid confusion in the archival record. Authors must cite the conference version when submitting the journal paper in two places: (i) in the Manuscript Central field requesting this information, (ii) in the journal paper itself. See PSPB Ops Manual 8.2.4.G.2: “...Section 8.2.1.B.9 requires that the author(s) cite the previous work(s) and very clearly indicate how the new submission differs from the previously published work(s). Authors should provide a copy of the conference paper when they submit their manuscript.”
• It is the responsibility of the Authors to ensure that any copyright commitments they have made outside the IEEE, however, are not violated by the eventual IEEE journal publication.
• Overall rationale for this policy: Authors should be encouraged to present their work to the community at IEEE conferences, which inevitably involves publishing a conference version. A policy that prevented conference papers from being later published in a journal version would have the opposite effect and discourage researchers from presenting their best work at conferences. Similarly, it would damage the quality of IEEE journals if innovative ideas are barred from publication in them, simply because they have been presented in a conference format. This rationale is in agreement with Section 8.1.7.E of the IEEE Publications and Services Products Board Operations Manual

Ethics in Peer Review

Peer review is a system based on trust. Each party relies on the others to operate professionally, ethically, and confidentially. Reviewers should:

• Provide a prompt, thorough, and impartial review of the article.
• Give constructive feedback with reasonable suggestions and a professional tone.
• Avoid suggesting the addition of irrelevant or unnecessary references.
• Alert the Associate Editor to any suspected ethical issues.
• Maintain confidentiality by safeguarding the unique contributions of the author’s work.

Submitting your review

The completed review includes the following:

1. Ratings on Technical Content and on General Content
2. Recommendation which can be one of the following:
   • Should be published in AP-S Transactions as is.
   • Should be published in AP-S Transactions after indicated minor changes
   • Major changes are necessary before this paper is acceptable for publication (State these changes in Comments for Transmittal to Author section).
   • Not suitable for publication in AP-S Transactions
   • Not Suitable
3. Comments to be sent to the authors: The most important parts of your review are the written comments that will be transmitted to the authors. In the space provided, you are requested to give a straightforward assessment of the importance of the ideas and/or results presented in the paper. Your written comments should provide a thorough technical appraisal of the reported work. If the manuscript contains information that will be of interest to the AP-S community, please indicate those parts of the manuscript that should be corrected before publication. Reviewers are also encouraged to suggest ways to improve the paper, even if it is acceptable in its original form.
4. Confidential comment to the Editor which will not be sent to the authors.

Keep in mind that in the case of revisions, if you are unable to evaluate the revised manuscript please inform the Associate Editor, so they can secure another reviewer.

Reviewer Forms

If necessary, reviewers can download from this page the forms (PDF 172KB) that are needed to complete a review.

For questions please contact the Editorial Office at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..