Proceedings Of The Ieee

---
name: proceedings-of-the-ieee
description: Use when targeting Proceedings of the IEEE or deciding whether an electrical-and-computer-engineering review manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the comprehensive-and-balanced synthesis bar, the no-primary-results expectation, the invited-vs-unsolicited and tutorial-vs-survey framing, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Proceedings of the IEEE (proceedings-of-the-ieee)

## Journal positioning

Proceedings of the IEEE is the institute's flagship journal for authoritative,
broadly accessible review, survey, and tutorial articles spanning the whole of
electrical, electronic, and computer engineering and the technologies emerging
from them. The defining expectation is a **comprehensive, balanced, forward-looking
synthesis** that an engineer or researcher outside the immediate sub-community can
read and learn from — not a primary-research paper reporting new experimental or
theoretical results. Narrow contributions, opinion pieces masquerading as reviews,
and surveys that simply tabulate one group's prior work are a poor fit and are
routinely returned. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It
does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting,
re-check the live Proceedings of the IEEE author information and any active call.

## When to trigger

- The author names Proceedings of the IEEE for a tutorial, survey, or scoped review
  spanning a recognizable engineering theme and wants a fit/framing check.
- A body of primary results must be re-framed into a comprehensive synthesis with
  pedagogical and forward-looking value, or routed to a primary-research transaction.
- The author is weighing an unsolicited submission against an invited contribution to
  a special issue, and needs to know how scope is defined.
- The author needs the breadth-and-balance bar and desk-reject heuristics specific to
  a flagship review venue.

## Scope & topic fit

- Authoritative tutorials that teach a maturing technology area to non-specialists,
  with worked intuition and a coherent conceptual map of the field.
- Comprehensive surveys that organize and critically compare a large literature,
  identify open problems, and forecast directions — across any IEEE-relevant domain.
- Cross-cutting syntheses at the convergence of subfields (e.g., computing, signal
  processing, communications, power, photonics, control) where breadth is the value.
- Scoped reviews of an emerging technology with societal or systems-level impact,
  written for a general engineering audience.
- Special-issue contributions whose theme is set by the active call; route by the
  call's stated scope, not by the topic alone.

## Method & evidence bar

- The contribution is **coverage, organization, and critical judgment**, not a new
  measurement; the article must survey the field fairly, including competing schools
  and negative results, rather than advocate one approach.
- Citations must be comprehensive and current across groups, not concentrated on the
  authors' own work; balance and completeness are explicitly judged.
- Any taxonomy, comparison table, or unifying framework must be defensible and add
  insight beyond a literature list.
- Open challenges and future directions must be substantive and grounded in the
  reviewed evidence, not a generic wishlist.
- New primary results, if present at all, are subordinate illustrations; a paper
  whose core is one new experiment or theorem belongs in a transaction instead.

## Structure & house style

- IEEE format; the journal publishes long-form review/survey/tutorial articles —
  match scope to that length and re-check current article types and limits on the
  live guide.
- The introduction frames why the area matters now and what the article uniquely
  organizes; section structure should mirror a clear taxonomy of the field.
- Figures and tables are pedagogical and comparative — conceptual schematics,
  taxonomies, and side-by-side comparison tables — not data from a single study.
- Many articles are invited or tied to special issues; unsolicited submissions are
  possible but must clear the same comprehensiveness bar — confirm the current path.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and
  `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the IEEE Author Center anchors,
  then cite the current Proceedings of the IEEE page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Proceedings of the IEEE information for authors" and
  follow the current submission-system version.
- Re-check whether unsolicited reviews are accepted and any white-paper/proposal or
  pre-submission-inquiry step, plus active special-issue calls.
- Re-check article types, length expectations, and the IEEE template.
- Re-check ORCID, competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use
  disclosure requirements, and IEEE open-access options.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official
  instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] The article is a comprehensive, balanced synthesis — not a primary-research paper with a literature-review intro.
- [ ] Coverage spans the field's competing approaches and groups, not mainly the authors' own prior work.
- [ ] A clear taxonomy or unifying framework organizes the material and adds insight.
- [ ] Open problems and future directions are substantive and grounded in the reviewed evidence.
- [ ] The writing is accessible to engineers outside the immediate sub-community.
- [ ] The article type, length, and (if required) proposal/invitation path match the live guide.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A narrow primary-research paper reframed with a long introduction as if it were a review.
- A non-comprehensive or unbalanced survey centered on one group's work, missing major competing lines.
- A tutorial too specialized for a general engineering readership, or too shallow to teach the area.
- A "future of X" opinion piece with thin literature coverage and no critical organization.
- Survey that lists papers without taxonomy, comparison, or identification of open problems.
- Scope mismatch with the active special-issue call to which it is nominally submitted.

## Re-routing decision

- New primary control/estimation theory → `ieee-transactions-on-automatic-control` or `automatica`.
- New signal-processing theory/methods → `ieee-transactions-on-signal-processing`.
- New communications results → `ieee-transactions-on-communications` or `ieee-journal-on-selected-areas-in-communications`.
- Device-level emerging-electronics primary work → `nature-electronics`.
- A focused review in a single subfield → that subfield's dedicated review journal rather than a general flagship.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Proceedings of the IEEE
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest engineering themes>
[Article type] Tutorial / Survey / Scoped review
[Coverage] <is the synthesis comprehensive and balanced across groups?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Invitation path] unsolicited / special-issue call / proposal-first (re-check)
[Official items to re-check] <article type / length / proposal path / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```