In the Editor Center, you will find detailed information about handling comments on submissions, guidelines for handling preliminary/conference versions, and important deadlines. Please select from the menu below for more information on:
Submissions to IEEE Annals of the History of Computing must represent original material. We discourage submitting to more than one publication concurrently. If it is determined that a submission (a) has already appeared in a publication other than a conference proceedings, or (b) appears in or will appear in any other publication before the editorial process at IEEE Annals is complete, the submission will be automatically rejected.
Submissions are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has been neither submitted to, nor published in, another journal. Concurrent submission to other publications and this magazine is viewed as a serious breach of ethics and, if detected, will result in immediate rejection of the submission. Submissions previously published in conference proceedings, digests, preprints, or records are eligible for consideration provided that the author informs the Administrator at the time of submission and that the submission has undergone substantial revision. For further information regarding concurrent submission, please see the Author Center.
The guidelines for handling concurrent submissions are as follows:
- If the Administrator is informed of a possible concurrent submission, she will immediately contact the Editor handling the submission and the Editor in Chief.
- The Editor in Chief at the other magazine/publication is contacted to determine the status of the submission.
- If the other submission is still undergoing review, both journals exchange submissions for comparison. The Editors in Chief of both journals are involved in this process.
- If the Editors in Chief determine a clear case of concurrent submission, the manuscript is immediately rejected.
If the authors provided a previously published conference submission, please take the time before assigning reviewers, to check the submission to determine whether there has been sufficient new material added to warrant publication in IEEE Annals. The IEEE guidelines are that the submission should contain a significant amount of new material, i.e., material that has not been published elsewhere. New results are not required; however, the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, etc., of the conference submission.
If the submission does not meet this criteria, or if you find that the manuscript is not suitable for further consideration, then you may choose to administratively reject it. Please make sure to clearly justify or explain your recommendation. If you make a recommendation on a submission before sending it out to reviewers, you must post your recommendation and fill out the review form in order to provide the authors with guidance, in case they decide to revise and resubmit their submission. Your identity will not be revealed to the authors.
back to top
Deadlines for Regular Review
*When the manuscript is withdrawn, the Administrator will inform the author that he/she can submit the revised version as a new submission. A new log number and a new set of dates will be given to the revision, and we will carry over its peer review history.
- Editors have 1 week to invite reviewers using Manuscript Central.
- Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the submission.
- Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation once all or enough of the reviews are in.
- Authors have a maximum of 4 months to submit their major revisions. If the author does not submit the revised version, the manuscript is withdrawn and rendered inactive.*
- Authors have a maximum of 2 months to submit their minor revisions.
- Editors are given 2 weeks to evaluate a minor revision and submit a final recommendation.
back to top
Note: In these guidelines, Editor is also known as Associate Editor.
The Editor in Chief (EIC) will assign an Editor to the manuscript based on a submission's subject area. The EIC assigns and sends the Editor a letter requesting that he/she handle the review process. Should the Editor decide to not assign reviewers but instead administratively reject the submission, he/she is required to provide comments that will be returned to the author. The Editor's identity will remain anonymous throughout the process.
IEEE Annals will not publish any submission that does not go through the review process via Manuscript Central.
Within a one-week period, the Editor should invite reviewers using Manuscript Central. The reviewer will respond to the invitation via email or URL within the invite letter. If the reviewer responds via email, the Editor must record the response in MC. Either case, the reviewer will receive the manuscript information allowing him/her access to the manuscript and review form. Three confirmed reviewers should be assigned. Unless the Editor makes specific arrangements with a reviewer, the deadline to return a completed review is three weeks.
Note: If the reviewer responds to the invitation to review via email, you must record the reviewer's response of Agreed from the "Invited Response" pull-down menu. Otherwise, the reviewer will not receive the manuscript information allowing him/her access to the manuscript and review form.
Manuscript Central will notify the Editor when enough reviews are received. Ideally, an Editor should have three completed reviews before making a recommendation. At that time, the Editor may post a recommendation of accept, reject, major revision, or minor revision, and send the recommendation to the Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief will make a decision and will notify the author of the decision, blind-copying the Editor.
back to top
An accept means accepting the submission "as is" with no further changes required by the reviewers. The submission will not be seen again by the Editor or by the reviewers.
A major revision means that the submission should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. We strongly discourage Editors from making a recommendation based on their own review of the manuscript if a major revision had been previously required.
If a major revision is recommended, the revision is assigned the original Editor and reviewers. The Administrator will send it out for a second round of reviews. Usually, the original reviewers are used for the revised manuscript. The Editor should inform the Administrator if an original reviewer should not review the revised version.
The minor revision should not go back to the reviewers. Any revision in length by more than 10 percent should be a major revision.
If a minor revision is recommended, the Administrator will send the revision to the original Editor. The Editor will evaluate the revision, make a final recommendation, and send the recommendation to the Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief will make a decision and will notify the author of the decision, blind copying the Editor.
This is an alternative to asking for a major revision or administrative reject - exceeding the word count. Please inform the Administrator of this recommendation.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
The Editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies such as (but not limited to) poor quality, not technically sound, or no new findings.
Out of Scope
The manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal. Please suggest a more suitable magazine or journal for submission if applicable.
back to top
How to Contact Us
IEEE Computer Society
10662 Los Vaqueros Circle
Los Alamitos, CA 90720 USA
+1 714 821 8380
back to top