Peer Review Policy

The Journal of High-Frequency Communication Technologies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigour, transparency, and accessibility through a meticulous double-blind peer review process. Here's an in-depth exploration of the key steps in this rigorous and impartial evaluation:

1. Reviewer Selection:

  • Reviewers are meticulously chosen based on their specialization, ensuring a deep understanding of the subject matter.
  • The reviewer pool undergoes continual updates to align with the evolving needs and advancements in the field.

2. Review Report:

  • The double-blind review process guarantees an unbiased evaluation by keeping both the reviewer and author identities confidential.
  • Reviewers conduct a comprehensive examination of the manuscript's content, methodology, and findings, assessing the overall quality of the research.
  • Feedback is provided with precision, addressing the clarity, coherence, and significance of the research contribution, aiming for a nuanced and thorough understanding.
  • Rigorous attention is given to the methodology employed, scrutinizing its appropriateness, rigour, and adherence to ethical standards.
  • The originality and innovation of the work are critically evaluated, emphasizing the importance of contributing novel insights to the field.
  • Suggestions for improvements are articulated with clarity, ensuring that authors receive actionable feedback to enhance the manuscript's quality.
  • Manuscripts are appraised not only for academic rigour but also for their potential to advance knowledge and make a meaningful impact in the respective domain.

3. Review Period:

  • The journal prioritizes an efficient publication process, with an average time frame of 40 days from submission to the first decision.
  • Reviewers are encouraged to submit their recommendations within four weeks of the manuscript assignment, fostering a timely and responsive review process.
  • Automatic reminders are in place to ensure a prompt response from editors and reviewers, streamlining the review timeline.

4. Decision:

  • Accept: Manuscripts meeting all quality requirements proceed to final editorial checks and publication, ensuring the dissemination of impactful research.
  • Minor Revision: Manuscripts with minor revisions required undergo a rapid review of changes before final acceptance, facilitating swift progress toward publication.
  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are necessary, and manuscripts are re-evaluated post-revision before a final decision, ensuring the incorporation of significant improvements.
  • Reject and Resubmit: Manuscripts rejected but with potential for acceptance upon substantial improvements undergo a new submission process, encouraging authors to refine and resubmit their work.
  • Reject: Manuscripts not meeting quality or ethical standards are rejected, and authors are informed of the decision with constructive feedback.