About Review Process
After a paper is submitted, the administrative assistant first screens it to check basic compliance with the submission requirements of PES papers. If a paper passes this screening, it is then transferred to EIC;
The EIC then does technical screening, such as compliance with scope, degree of similarity, quality of presentation, paper resubmission etc. The EIC also identifies and assigns the paper to a suitable editor based on his/her expertise and workload. A status update email will be sent to the submitting author;
Editor does one more technical screening to determine if a paper is worthy to be reviewed (based on scope and degree of contributions). If a paper is not ready for review, it will be returned to EIC and a decline-to-review decision will be issued to the author. If a paper passes this screening, the editor will determine what is the expertise needed from the reviewers and will find reviewers independent of the EIC. Status update emails will be sent to the submitting author when a reviewer agrees to review the paper;
Reviewers review the paper. Note that this is a peer review process. There is no “higher authority” to review the paper. Some reviewers may be experts in the subject area. But they are often overloaded with review work. Typical reviewers are composed of experienced and novice reviewers. Status update emails will be sent to the submitting author when a reviewer completes the review;
Editor evaluates the review results. He/she pays special attention to the comments of the reviewers. Reviews without adequate comments are not taken into account. Editor then makes at a recommendation to EIC. Note that the recommendation is not based on the “vote” of the reviewers.
EIC studies the recommendation of the editor and, in some cases, the comments of the reviewers. The editor may be contacted for clarification. A decision is then made;
If authors are not satisfied with the decision, they can appeal to EIC (see the section on disagreement resolution). However, if a paper has received negative comments from multiple reviewers, there is no ground to appeal the decision. Such an action will not change the outcome other than increasing the workload of the editorial board.