The following policies and notes have been extracted from the REVIEW POLICIES FOR IEEE EDITORS and pertain either directly or peripherally to reviewers. They may also be useful for Guest Editors and Associate Editors or anyone called upon to assist the Editor.

1.        The IEEE must of necessity assume that material presented at its meetings or submitted to its publications is properly available for general dissemination to the audiences these activities are organized to serve. It is the responsibility of the authors, not the IEEE, to determine whether disclosure of their material requires the prior consent of other parties, and if so, to obtain it.

                (NOTE: This is a formal policy #6.17 in the IEEE POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL and although mainly directed to authors, is essential information for all.)

2.        No letter or article received unsigned shall be published. It is acceptable for letters or articles to carry the notation "Names withheld on request."

           No letter or article shall be published if it contains any pejorative ad hominem remarks.

           The judgment of the suitability of any letter or article for publication shall remain with the Editor-in -Chief. If, however, there is any question, the judgment shall be left to the  responsible person above the Editor in the hierarchy of the respective Society/Council, and continue up to the President, if necessary.

                (NOTE: A policy of the 1982 PUB. The second paragraph of this policy is particularly relevant for reviewers.)

3.         IEEE policy requires that referees treat the contents of papers under review as privileged information not to be disclosed to others before publication.

                (NOTE: A policy of the 1980 PUB Although implicit to the peer review system, this policy is explicitly stated in response to the nondisclosure requirements of a Patent Law  affecting many European countries.)

4.        It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides.

                (NOTE: A policy of the 1983 PUB. This explicit statement of what has always been implicit in the peer review system is in specific response to a member's complaint that,  although publications routinely establish rules and guidelines for authors, no "code of publishing practice" exists for Editors and reviewers.)

5.        It will be understood that, when an Editor submits material for review, the recipient is a formal reviewer and that the reviewer's comments, with those of other formal reviewers, will form the basis on which the Editor will decide whether or not to publish the paper, and with changes. "Informal review" is to be avoided.

6.        The referee is expected  to return comments and opinions within a specified time, not longer than 60 days or else request that the manuscript be returned immediately for  submission to another referee.

7.        When a paper has merit but cannot be accepted without changes, reviewers can recommend acceptance if certain mandatory changes are made, or they can recommend that the  paper be resubmitted for review after changes are made if they believe that the changes must be examined prior to acceptance.