In the Editor Center, you will find detailed information about handling comments on submissions, step-by-step guidelines for your role in the review process, and important deadline timeframes. Please select from the menu below for more information on:
How to Use Manuscript Central
If you need your user ID and/or password, or have any problems using Manuscript Central, please contact the magazine assistant.
Access a Manuscript
- Go to the Editor Center located in Manuscript Central.
- Select the New Manuscripts: Manage Reviewers and Make Recommendations view.
- Select View Details.
- Select the manuscript title to view the PDF of the submission
Put into Review
- Scroll down and select Assign or Remove Reviewer
- Use the Reviewer Search located on the right side of your screen
- Use the BEGINS WITH search and enter Reviewers' last name
- Click on the reviewer's name and then click on the Assign Reviewer button
- Once the manuscript form is populated with the names, close out of the form; the names will be saved.
- Click the "Mr. Bryan Sallis" hyperlink e-mail (located in View Details screen) to notify the MA that the reviewers have been selected.
The magazine assistant will then format and send request letters to the reviewers you selected.
If you have already confirmed the reviewers you selected, please let the magazine assistant know so he can alter the letter accordingly.
Post a Recommendation
- To access the manuscripts, go to the Editor Center located in Manuscript Central
- Select the New Manuscripts: Manage Reviewers and Make Recommendations view.
- Select View Details.
- Scroll down and select Make Recommendation, then click Post Recommendation.
- You can select from Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision or Reject.
- Please carefully read the instructions before filling out the form. When you have
finished filling out the form, select Send to Editor-in-Chief.
Please note that this action is not reversible. Notification of your recommendation will be sent directly to the magazine assistant for processing.
As an editor, you are responsible for understanding and helping us implement our peer-review policies and procedures. To access this information, please see the Instructions and Forms page. Select the Internet button to access the Editor Center.
Submissions to Computer must present original material. 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.
Submissions previously published in conference proceedings, digests, preprints, or records are eligible for consideration if the author informs the editorial staff at the time of submission and the submission has undergone substantial revision. More information regarding concurrent submission appears on Screen 1 in Manuscript Central.
The guidelines for handling concurrent submissions are as follows:
- A magazine assistant (MA) who is made aware of a possible concurrent submission immediately contacts the editor handling the submission and the editor in chief.
- The editor handling the submission in question and the editor in chief of the other publication are contacted to determine the status of the submission submitted to them. We also request a copy of that submission.
- If the other submission is still undergoing review, both journals trade submissions for comparison. The editors and editors in chief of both journals are involved in this process.
- Based on the policy described above, if the editors determine a clear case of concurrent submission, the manuscript is immediately rejected.
If the authors provide a previously published conference submission, please take the time before assigning reviewers to check the submission to determine whether sufficient new material has been added to warrant publication in Computer. The IEEE guidelines are that authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor is under review for another refereed publication. If authors have used their own previously published material as a basis for a new submission, they are required to cite the previous work(s) and very clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively different contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s). Copies of any previous published work associated with the new submission must also be included as supporting documentation.
If the submission does not meet these criteria, or if you find that the manuscript is not suitable for further consideration as detailed in the Guidelines for Making Decisions below, then you can choose to administratively reject it, making sure to clearly justify or explain your decision. If you make a decision on a submission before sending it out to referees, you must post your recommendation and fill out the review form to provide the authors with the proper reference, in case they decide to revise and resubmit their submission. Please note that your identity will not be revealed to the authors.
Deadlines for Regular Review
- editors have 2 weeks to submit a list of reviewers to the magazine assistant.
- Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the submission.
- editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation to the MA once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
- Authors have a maximum of 6 months* to submit major revisions. The MA begins sending reminders on the third month pending.
- Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit minor revisions. The MA begins sending reminders on the first month pending.
- editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and give the MA a final decision.
- Authors are given a total of 6 months to submit their publication materials.
*At six months, the MA will contact the editor, with a copy to the editor in chief, requesting permission to close the submission's file. If the editor approves, the MA will notify the author that we are closing the file, but that they can resubmit. Although the resubmitted manuscript will be given a new log number and a new set of dates, if the author includes the previous log number with the resubmission, we will carry over its peer review history and essentially pick up where we left off.
The editor in chief (EIC) will assign an editor to the manuscript based on a submission's subject area. For each submission that the EIC assigns, the magazine assistant will send the editor a letter requesting that he/she handle the review process of the submission. Please be advised that the editor's identity will be given to the author once reviewers are assigned. Should the editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead to administratively reject the submission, he/she will be required to fill out a review form as an anonymous reviewer.
Please note: an author who sends a submission directly to the editor should be instructed to submit the paper using Manuscript Central. The MA will then send the manuscript to the EIC to be assigned to an editor. It may or may not be the editor who originally received the submission. This ensures that our submissions are tracked properly and that each submission receives a fair and unbiased review. Submissions that authors send directly to the editors should not be sent out for review. Any submission that does not go through the review process via Manuscript Central and the MA will not be recognized as valid and hence may not be published by Computer.
As soon as possible, but definitely within a two-week period, the editor should send the MA a set of reviewers (either three confirmed or five unconfirmed) by e-mail, including their full names and e-mail addresses. If possible, please contact the reviewers in advance and ask them to agree to do the review. We have found that reviewers are less likely to decline if contacted by the editor directly. The MA will then send the reviewer a review request letter. In addition, the author is notified that the manuscript has been sent out for review and is given the name of the assigned editor. We normally set a six-week deadline for reviews, unless the editor makes specific arrangements with a reviewer.
The MA will forward the reviews to the editor as they are received. Ideally an editor should have three reviews before making a recommendation on a submission. At that time, the editor may recommend that the submission be accepted, rejected, or returned to the author for major revisions. (See the Guidelines for Making Decisions section below.) In that case, the editor should personally re-review the submission before giving it a final acceptance.
The editor is to notify the MA of the recommendation, and the MA will notify the author of the decision, copying the editor.
If a major revision is recommended, the revision will be assigned to the same editor and sent out for a second round of reviews. Usually the same reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but that is at the discretion of the editor.
If a submission is accepted, the authors are given a publication checklist and are asked to prepare their final manuscript. If a minor revision is requested, after receiving a copy of the final manuscript, the MA will send a copy of the submission to the editor for a final decision.
Guidelines for Making Decisions
Note: All decisions are final and irreversible.
An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the submission as is, with no further changes. The submission will not be seen again by the editor or 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 decision based on their own review of the manuscript if a major revision had been required. This may cause problems in the future if reviewers see a published submission that they did not have a chance to re-review.
Note: If a submission has already gone through two rounds of reviews, the option of a second major revision is not available.
The minor revision may not go back to the reviewers if the editor feels the revisions are sufficient/appropriate. Any revision in length by more than 10% should be a major revision.
This can be an alternative to asking for a second major revision.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
The editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers, due to significant deficiencies.
Out of Scope
The manuscript does not fall within the scope of the magazine. We ask that you please suggest a more suitable journal for submission.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How do I check the status of the papers that I am handling without going to the assistant?
- You have access to the status of your assigned papers at any time. First, determine whether the manuscript is a new submission or a revision. Once you have selected the link to the appropriate category, you will find the status of each paper in the third column, second row for each record.
- Accessing the Web on my laptop while I am on travel is not convenient. Can I gain access to my assigned papers through some other method?
- The magazine assistant can e-mail copies of papers to you if you have problems accessing them through Manuscript Central. However, please be aware that all decisions and actions must be made through the system.
- How many reviews should be submitted before I can make a decision?
- Our policy requires a paper to have at least three submitted reviews before the editor makes a decision.
- What do I do if I have a conflict of interest related to the author of a paper that has been assigned to me?
- Please contact the magazine assistant via e-mail to request that the paper be reassigned to another editor. Indicate that it is due to a conflict of interest.
- An author of a paper I handled has decided to appeal my decision. What do I do?
- Please contact the magazine assistant via e-mail. If possible, please forward a copy of the author's e-mail appealing the decision. The assistant will then contact the editor in chief, who will review the appeal and then provide instructions on how she would like to proceed.