Proceedings of the IEEE Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, IEEE editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: Proceedings of the IEEE author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the proposed Review is tutorial-style
• whether the author team has engineering authority
• whether topic timing is right

• a clear tutorial-Review framing
• author authority with primary-research record
• topic-timing case
• broad engineering relevance
• a 1-2 page proposal

• Research-paper framing rather than tutorial Review.
• Author standing in narrow specialty without broad engineering authority.
• Topic recently covered in Proceedings of the IEEE.
• Engineering relevance is narrow.

Proceedings of the IEEE is among the highest-impact engineering Review journals.

Tutorial-Review standard: the journal differentiates from IEEE Transactions journals (research papers) and IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials (specialty surveys) by demanding broad-engineering tutorial Reviews.

Authority expectation: editors weigh sustained primary-research records and broad engineering visibility.

Long planning horizon: invitations often planned 12-18 months ahead.

The strongest Proceedings of the IEEE inquiry letters establish:

• the tutorial-Review framing
• the author authority
• the topic-timing case
• the broad engineering relevance

• the proposed Review is tutorial-style
• the author team has broad engineering authority
• the topic-timing case is strong
• engineering relevance is broad

• Is Proceedings of the IEEE a good journal?

Before contacting, run your proposal through a Proceedings of the IEEE tutorial readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with Review proposals targeting Proceedings of the IEEE, three patterns generate the most consistent inquiry declines.

In our experience, roughly 35% of Proceedings of the IEEE declines trace to research-paper framing rather than tutorial Review. In our experience, roughly 25% involve author-authority gaps. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from topic-timing collision.

• Research-paper framing rather than tutorial Review. Proceedings of the IEEE editors expect tutorial-style synthesis, not original research. We observe inquiries framed as research-paper extensions routinely declined.

• Author standing without broad engineering visibility. Proceedings of the IEEE editors weigh broad authority. We see inquiries from authors with narrow specialty publications routinely declined unless broad engineering visibility is articulated.

• Topic-timing collision with recent coverage. Proceedings of the IEEE editors check the journal's recent issues. We find inquiries on topics covered within 5 years routinely declined unless a clearly distinct angle is articulated. A Proceedings of the IEEE tutorial readiness check can identify whether the inquiry case is strong.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Proceedings of the IEEE among top engineering Review journals.

In pre-inquiry diagnostic work for top broad-engineering Review journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong proposals from weak ones. First, the proposal must be tutorial-style. Second, the author CV should show 10+ primary-research papers in the engineering subfield with broad visibility. Third, the proposal should differentiate sharply from Reviews published in the prior 5 years. Fourth, engineering relevance should be broad.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-inquiry diagnostics for Proceedings of the IEEE is the research-paper-versus-tutorial distinction. Proceedings of the IEEE editors expect tutorial-style synthesis that introduces and consolidates a broad engineering area. Inquiries framed as "we extend our recent research findings to address X" routinely receive "this should be a tutorial" feedback during inquiry screening. We coach proposers to articulate the tutorial framing explicitly. Inquiries framed as "we propose a tutorial Review that introduces engineering area X to broad IEEE community, organizing the field around principle Y and providing accessible foundations for future research" receive better editorial traction. The same logic applies across tutorial Review journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the proposals that get traction articulate the tutorial framing.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-inquiry diagnostic patterns recur most often in the proposals we review for Proceedings of the IEEE. First, contact letters that begin with original research findings rather than the tutorial framing lose force in editorial scanning. Second, contacts where the author authority section emphasizes specialty publications without broad engineering visibility are flagged for authority concerns. Third, contacts that lack engagement with Proceedings of the IEEE's recent issues are at risk of being told the proposal doesn't fit the publication conversation.

The strongest proposals we coach distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, they confine the inquiry letter to one page and use it to make the case for tutorial framing, author authority, and significance. Second, they include a one-sentence elevator pitch. Third, they identify the specific recent Proceedings of the IEEE articles that this proposal builds on and the specific gap the Review will address.