IEEE Author Portal Saves IEEE Access Authors Time and Effort

Submitting your article to IEEE Access is now easier than ever. In a few short steps and without having to copy and paste or retype entire sections of your manuscript, what used to take a few hours can now be accomplished in as little as 15-20 minutes for most users. Sign in to the IEEE Author Portal using your IEEE Account. Upload your article, review what’s been captured to confirm the details, and submit it to IEEE Access for peer review. 

Creating an IEEE Account is easy if you happen to need one. Your IEEE Account will also be used for all production-related processes, creating a more streamlined author experience from the point of peer review all the way through to the publication of your article in IEEE Xplore. Author login credentials on any other type of peer review system (ScholarOne, PaperPlaza, PaperCept, etc.) will not grant you access to the IEEE Author Portal; please use your IEEE Account.

Start a new submission to IEEE Access.

Reviewer Best Practices

What should I consider before accepting an invitation to review?

  • Is this article in my area of expertise?
  • Am I able to provide a quality, in-depth review within 1-2 weeks, in line with the expedited peer review process of IEEE Access (i.e., submission-to-publication time of 4 to 6 weeks)?
  • Do I have a conflict of interest with the author(s)? For example, have I worked with them on an article in the past, were any of them my advisors or my students, do we share an institution? If so, I should decline to review. Please note that IEEE Access follows 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.
  • Can I keep the confidentiality of the article? As per Section 8.2.2 of the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual, IEEE requires that reviewers treat the contents of articles under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication.

If I accept to review, what will I be asked to evaluate?

Reviewers will be asked to answer the following questions when completing a review on an article:

  1. Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?
  2. Is the paper technically sound?
  3. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?
  4. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient? *Please note that suggesting one’s own references as a reviewer if not relevant to the article, or at an excessive level, is unethical and is not permitted.
  5. Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed? If there are, then please indicate which references should be removed.

What type of decision should I recommend?

Since IEEE Access uses a binary decision process, you may recommend decisions of either Accept or Reject. However, IEEE Access does offer two reject options, one where resubmission is allowed, and another where it is not. In the case of allowing resubmission, the authors are not required to resubmit to IEEE Access and may choose to submit elsewhere. The decision options you can choose from when reviewing an article are detailed below:

Accept: Reviewers should only recommend accept if there are minor edits required prior to publication (grammar, minor edits to figures or graphs, etc.).  Ideally, the article should be able to be published as is.  Please keep in mind that when you recommend acceptance of an article, the authors will not be expected to show the changes made.  It is also worth noting that you should only recommend accept if the article fits the criteria for an article to be accepted in IEEE Access (listed in the next question).

Reject (updates required before resubmission): You should recommend this decision if the article has merit but requires updates before it can be published.  If this is the final decision made by the Associate Editor, upon resubmission authors will be required to supply a list of changes made, and a “response to reviewers” document that addresses each reviewer’s concern.  You will be invited to review if the authors choose to submit the revised article. *Please note that IEEE Access allows authors to revise and resubmit their article only one time. 

Reject (do not encourage resubmit):  You should recommend this option if you feel the changes needed are too significant, if additional revision would not improve the manuscript, or if the article was previously rejected (updates required before resubmission) but the authors did not sufficiently address the reviewers’ concerns and the article is still not ready for publication. If the Associate Editor follows this recommendation, the authors will not be permitted to resubmit the article to IEEE Access.

Please keep in mind that, while reviewers provide guidance and a recommendation, Associate Editors use their own judgement in conjunction with the reviewers’ comments to make the final decision.

What are the criteria for an article to be accepted in IEEE Access?

The criteria for an article to be accepted for publication in IEEE Access include:

  1. The article should be original writing that enhances and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the given subject area. Original review articles and surveys are acceptable, even if new data/concepts are not presented, but there must be a clear advance over existing work. **If you have any concerns about plagiarism, please alert the Associate Editor or article administrator immediately. Please do not run the manuscript through any plagiarism software.  Each article submitted to IEEE Access is scanned for plagiarism and evaluated during our thorough prescreening process.
  2. Results reported have not been submitted or published elsewhere (although expanded versions of conference publications as well as preprints are eligible for submission).
  3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
  4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
  5. The article is written in Standard English with correct grammar.
  6. Appropriate references to related prior published works must be included.
  7. The article falls within scope of IEEE Access.

What makes a good quality review?

Summarize the work, comment on its overall merits and drawbacks, and provide constructive, substantial feedback.

Consider the strength of the technical content. Does the literature review provide sufficient background and motivation for the work? Review the theoretical/experimental depth, strength of analysis, quality of supporting data and results. Is there sufficient benchmarking and validation, are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis, is the flow of information logical? Is there enough information in this paper for the experiments to be reproducible? If not, comment on what additional or supplementary information is needed. Are there any major technical flaws?

Comment on the article’s technical presentation and organization. Consider things like structure of the paper, language, writing style, quality of figures and tables, typos, formatting.

Can I ask authors to cite specific references?

Suggesting specific references, including articles you have authored, if not relevant to the article or at an excessive level, is not permitted.

You are expected to check if the references are current and relevant to the subject. If you feel that the authors have overlooked important prior research, we encourage you to recommend particular topic areas, rather than specific articles, to improve their literature review and/or better highlight the advantages over the state-of-the-art. If there are any irrelevant, inappropriate, or unnecessary references, be sure to mention this in your comments to the authors.

We of course realize that sometimes authors may miss crucial references to seminal work, or even very recent publications that the authors would benefit from seeing, so if you are going to recommend specific references while completing the review, please be sure to explain why you believe they are relevant to the work.

What should I consider if I am reviewing a resubmission (i.e., a previously rejected article)?

You should evaluate the updated manuscript, any supplementary information, as well as the authors’ response to reviewers’ document to determine if all your concerns have been addressed, and that you are satisfied with the updates. You may also wish to comment on how well the authors addressed the concerns of the other previous reviewers as well, or if you agree or disagree with the feedback from the other reviewers (based on the response to reviewers provided by the authors).

While we typically ask the original reviewers to take another look at the revised article, sometimes one or more are unavailable. Since IEEE policy requires that every article is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers, we may need to invite a new reviewer on a resubmission. If you are reviewing a previously rejected article and did NOT review an earlier version, we still ask that you evaluate as outlined above and decide whether you have new feedback to provide for the authors.

What is the purpose of “Confidential Comments to Editor”?

If you have thoughts on the article that you prefer the editor not share with the authors, use the space provided.

Can I request a review deadline extension?

Yes, reviewers can request a deadline extension as needed.  Since IEEE Access has an expedited peer review process, we can only provide deadline extensions of 1 – 2 weeks maximum.

What does IEEE Access expect from reviewers?

Reviewers should:

  • Be experts of the subject area of the article they agree to review.
  • Complete the review within 7 days. Extensions can be given as needed, especially for longer articles.
  • Decline the review invitation if they have a conflict of interest (COI) with any of the authors of the article.
  • Treat the contents of articles under review as confidential information. Reviewers should not make inappropriate use of the special knowledge that the access to the articles provides.
  • Evaluate the unique contributions, technical soundness, and presentation style of the articles. Comment on the overall merits and drawbacks of the manuscript, provide constructive, substantial feedback and make a recommendation (Accept/Reject) to the best of their judgement.
  • Judge if the study is well-designed and executed, and if the data provided is sufficient to support the conclusion. Check if the illustrations, tables and graphs support the text.
  • Determine if the article makes significant advancement to the field. Please note that IEEE Access articles are not necessarily expected to have a high level of novelty, but they should be distinct from previous publications and technically sound.
  • Check if the references are sufficient and applicable. Please note that suggesting one’s own references as a reviewer if not relevant to the article, or at an excessive level, is unethical and is not permitted.
  • Alert the Associate Editor, the administrator, or the editorial office if they suspect that any part of the article was plagiarized.
  • Practice ethical behavior. Contacting the authors regarding the manuscript while the article is under review is an example of unethical behavior.

Combining Citation Network Information and Text Similarity for Research Article Recommender Systems

Researchers often need to gather a comprehensive set of papers relevant to a focused topic, but this is often difficult and time-consuming using existing search methods. For example, keyword searching suffers from difficulties with synonyms and multiple meanings. While some automated research-paper recommender systems exist, these typically depend on either a researcher’s entire library or just a single paper, resulting in either a quite broad or a quite narrow search. With these issues in mind, we built a new research-paper recommender system that utilizes both citation information and textual similarity of abstracts to provide a highly focused set of relevant results. The input to this system is a set of one or more related papers, and our system searches for papers that are closely related to the entire set. This framework helps researchers gather a set of papers that are closely related to a particular topic of interest, and allows control over which cross-section of the literature is located. We show the effectiveness of this recommender system by using it to recreate the references of review papers. We also show its utility as a general similarity metric between scientific articles by performing unsupervised clustering on sets of scientific articles. We release an implementation, ExCiteSearch (bitbucket.org/mmmontemore/excitesearch), to allow researchers to apply this framework to locate relevant scientific articles.

View this article on IEEE Xplore

 

Editors’ Top Article Selections of 2021

Editors’ Top Selections – IEEE Access Articles Published in 2021

Enabling Large Intelligent Surfaces With Compressive Sensing and Deep Learning

Abdelrahman Taha, Muhammad Alrabeiah, Ahmed Alkhateeb

This paper presents a novel architecture for large intelligent surfaces by leveraging compressive sensing and deep learning tools. The architecture keeps the majority of its reflection matrix elements passive while nearly eliminating the training overhead required for the passive elements.

Read the full article on IEEE Xplore.

____________________________________________________________

High-Power and High-Responsivity Avalanche Photodiodes for Self-Heterodyne FMCW Lidar System Applications

Zohauddin Ahmad, Yan-Min Liao, Sheng-I Kuo, You-Chia Chang, Rui-Lin Chao, Naseem, Yi-Shan Lee, Yung-Jr Hung, Huang-Ming Chen, Jyehong Chen, Jiun-In Guo, Jin-Wei Shi

A novel top-illuminated InGaAs-based avalanche photodiode with high-power and high-responsivity is proposed here for multiple benefits in self-heterodyne frequency-modulated continuous wave Lidar system applications.

Read the full article on IEEE Xplore.

___________________________________________________________

Collision Avoidance in Pedestrian-Rich Environments With Deep Reinforcement Learning

Michael Everett, Yu Fan Chen, Jonathan P. How

In an effort to make the navigation of robots collision-free, a deep reinforcement model is effectively employed, which handles a potentially large and time-varying number of nearby, decision-making agents with a single learned policy.

Read the full article on IEEE Xplore.

__________________________________________________________

Meandering Pattern 433 MHz Antennas for Ingestible Capsules

Michael J. Christoe, Natthaporn Phaoseree, Jialuo Han, Aron Michael, Shaghik Atakaramians, Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh

An optimum design of a miniature antenna that gives desired signal transmission across extreme conditions of in-body dielectric environment is presented in this article.

Read the full article on IEEE Xplore.

__________________________________________________________

Highly Sensitive Reflective-Mode Phase-Variation Permittivity Sensor Based on a Coplanar Waveguide Terminated With an Open Complementary Split Ring Resonator (OCSRR)

Lijuan Su, Jonathan Munoz-Enano, Paris Velez, Marta Gil-Barba, Pau Casacuberta, Ferran Martin

Reflective-mode phase-variation microwave sensors devoted to material characterization, where the sensing element is an electrically small planar resonator, are presented in this article.

Read the full article on IEEE Xplore.

 

The Internet of Federated Things (IoFT)

The Internet of Things (IoT) is on the verge of a major paradigm shift. In the IoT system of the future, IoFT, the “cloud” will be substituted by the “crowd” where model training is brought to the edge, allowing IoT devices to collaboratively extract knowledge and build smart analytics/models while keeping their personal data stored locally. This paradigm shift was set into motion by the tremendous increase in computational power on IoT devices and the recent advances in decentralized and privacy-preserving model training, coined as federated learning (FL). This article provides a vision for IoFT and a systematic overview of current efforts towards realizing this vision. Specifically, we first introduce the defining characteristics of IoFT and discuss FL data-driven approaches, opportunities, and challenges that allow decentralized inference within three dimensions: (i) a global model that maximizes utility across all IoT devices, (ii) a personalized model that borrows strengths across all devices yet retains its own model, (iii) a meta-learning model that quickly adapts to new devices or learning tasks. We end by describing the vision and challenges of IoFT in reshaping different industries through the lens of domain experts. Those industries include manufacturing, transportation, energy, healthcare, quality & reliability, business, and computing.

View this article on IEEE Xplore

 

Optimal Sizing of CPP-GMR Read Sensors for Magnetic Recording Densities of 1–4 Tb/in²

Several studies have confirmed that current-perpendicular-to-the-plane giant magnetoresistance (CPP-GMR) technology is appropriate for next-generation read sensors for ultrahigh areal densities (ADs) of data storage applications. Since the physical dimension of the read sensor is a crucial factor for developing the reader to overcome its limitations, this paper proposes an optimal sizing prediction of the CPP-GMR read heads for ADs of 1-4 Tb/in 2 . Micromagnetic modelling was performed in the simulations. The appropriate length of the stripe height (SH) and the read width (RW) of the readers was estimated based on a consideration of sensor outputs including the readback signal, asymmetry parameter, dibit response and power spectral density (PSD) profile. It was found that a variation of SH and RW lengths had an influential impact on the readback signal waveform. Those affectations were further characterized through the echoes of dibit response showing that shortening the SH length or increasing the RW length could improve the resolution and reduce the distortion occurring in the readback signal. Moreover, the PSD profile indicated that the reader operation became more stable at shorter SH lengths or longer RW lengths. The head response spectrum was also examined. In addition, the magnitude of the bias current was studied in relation to the head response. Lastly, the optimal physical dimension (SH × RW) of the CPP-GMR readers for ADs of 1-4 Tb/in 2 was predicted to be ( 40×48 ) nm, ( 28×29 ) nm, ( 25×26 ) nm and ( 19×20 ) nm, respectively. The results can be utilized to design the CPP-GMR sensors at ultrahigh magnetic recording capacities.

*Published in the IEEE Magnetics Society Section within IEEE Access.

View this article on IEEE Xplore

 

Investigation and Analysis of Novel Skewing in a 140 kW Traction Motor of Railway Cars That Accommodate Limited Inverter Switching Frequency and Totally Enclosed Cooling System

This study facilitated the improvement of no-load back electromotive force (back-EMF) wave form, total harmonic distortion (THD) of back-EMF, and torque ripple using a novel skew angle formula, considering the specific order of a no-load THD. In real usage environments, it is taken into consideration for the fully enclosed cooling system and limited inverter switching frequency of urban railway car traction motors. Since the most railway car traction motors use high-withstand voltage rectangular wires in slot-open structure, a no-load back EMF waveform includes large space slot harmonics, which should be smaller as possible. For 6-step control, the no-load back EMF waveform is important because switching for motor control is performed once after the rotor position is determined. To improve the no-load back EMF waveform and THD, two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) were performed using a novel skew angle formula considering specific harmonic order reduction, while the fundamental amplitude was minimally reduced. A prototype with the novel skew was fabricated and verified. In addition, it was designed by calculating a low current density for a fully enclosed cooling system. A temperature saturation experiment was also performed, and successfully verified. Therefore, we suggest that the no-load back EMF characteristics and torque ripple are improved by applying the novel skew angle instead of a traditional skew angle.

*Published in the IEEE Magnetics Society Section within IEEE Access.

View this article on IEEE Xplore

 

IEEE Magnetics Society Co-Sponsoring the 2022 Joint MMM-Intermag Conference

The IEEE Magnetics Society, which has a permanent section within IEEE Access, will be co-sponsoring the Joint MMM-Intermag Conference in New Orleans, LA, from January 10-14, 2022 with AIP Publishing LLC.  

The 15th Joint MMM-INTERMAG Conference (2022 Joint) is an opportunity for members of the international scientific and engineering communities interested in recent developments in fundamental and applied magnetism to attend and contribute to the technical sessions. The conference will offer both in-person and prerecorded on-demand content.

The technical program will include invited and contributed papers in oral and poster sessions, invited symposia, a plenary session, and an evening session, with about 1500 presentations overall. Listed below are just a few of the Special Events and Sessions occurring during the conference: 

– Tutorial: Quantum  Magnonics
– Special Session: Current Trends in Magnetism,
– Women in Magnetism Event
– Plenary and IEEE Awards Ceremony
– Writing Workshop

 

To learn more about attending or participating in this conference, please visit the conference website.

IEEE Access now offers Paperpal Preflight

IEEE Access now offers Paperpal Preflight as a preparatory tool. Running your manuscript through Paperpal Preflight prior to submission to IEEE Access allows you to receive instant feedback on common errors and omissions in language and technical aspects of your manuscript, to help you improve your manuscript prior to submission. Check your manuscript on Paperpal Preflight by clicking here.

IEEE Access Hosts Permanent Society/Council Sections

Did you know that IEEE Access hosts multiple, permanent Society/Council Sections? These sections are collections of articles that focus on an IEEE Society/Council’s fields of interest, grouped together on IEEE Xplore. Articles submitted to these sections are managed by topically focused Editors from that Society/Council, and undergo high-quality, rigorous peer review in only 4 to 6 weeks.

Publishing open access gives your research maximum visibility, and with the expedited peer review process of IEEE Access, you can share your research with the world faster. View all of the Society/Council Sections that IEEE Access hosts by clicking here.