Editor in Chief Center
The information contained in the Editor in Chief (EIC) Center is meant only for the EIC of Computing in Science & Engineering. Please select from the menu below for more information on
Frequently Asked Questions
Deadlines for Regular Review
For editors of special issues (Guest Editors), the deadlines differ dramatically. Please contact the Magazine Assistant for specific deadlines. For regular submissions,
- Editors have 2 weeks to submit a list of confirmed reviewers to the Publications Coordinator .
- Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the submission.
- Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation to the Publications Coordinator once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
- Authors have a maximum of 6 months* to submit their major revisions. The Publications Coordinator begins sending reminders on the third month pending.
*At six months, the Publications Coordinator will contact the Editor with a copy to the Editor in Chief (EIC), requesting permission to close the submission's file. If the EIC approves, the Publications Coordinator will notify the authors that we are closing the file, but that they can resubmit. Although the resubmitted submission will be given a new log number and a new set of dates, the authors will be told that if they include their previous log number with the resubmission, we will carry over its peer-review history and essentially pick up where we left off.
- Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The Publications Coordinator begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
- Editors are given 1 week to review a minor revision and give the Publications Coordinator a final decision.
- Authors are given a total of 3 months to submit their publication materials upon acceptance.
back to top
Submissions to Computing in Science & Engineering must represent original material. We discourage submitting to more than one publication at one time. If we determine that a submission (a) has already appeared in anything more than a conference proceedings, or (b) appears in or will appear in a submission to any other publication before the editorial process at Computing in Science & Engineering is completed, we will reject the submission.
Submissions previously published in conference proceedings, digests, preprints, or records are eligible for consideration provided that the author informs the editorial staff at the time of submission and that the submissions have undergone substantial revision. The question regarding concurrent submission appears on Screen 1 in Manuscript Central.
The guidelines for handling concurrent submissions are as follows:
- If the Publications Coordinator is informed of a possible concurrent submission, the Publications Coordinator immediately contacts the Editor handling the submission and the Editor in Chief (EIC).
- The Publications Coordinator handles the submission in question and contacts the EIC at the other journal/publication to determine the status and request a copy of that submission.
- If the other submission is still undergoing review, both journals "swap" submissions for comparison. The Editors and EICs of both journals are involved in this process.
- Based on the policy mentioned above, if the Editors determine a clear case of concurrent submission, the manuscript is immediately rejected.
If the authors provided a previously published conference submission, the Editor in Chief (EIC) should take the time before assigning reviewers to check the submission to determine whether there has been sufficient new material added to warrant publication in Computing in Science & Engineering. The IEEE guidelines are that the submission should contain at least 30% new material (i.e., material that has not been published elsewhere.) New results are not required, but the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, and so on, of the conference submission. Please keep in mind that this 30% rule applies to all aspects of the review process and must also be applied to all revisions and/or final versions submitted by the authors.
If the submission does not meet this criteria, or if the EIC finds that the manuscript is not suitable for further consideration (poor quality or outside the scope of Computing in Science & Engineering), then the EIC may choose to administratively reject it, making sure to clearly justify or explain the decision. If the EIC makes a decision on a submission before sending it out to reviewers, he or she must post the recommendation and fill out the review form in order to provide the authors with the proper reference (in case they decide to revise and resubmit their submission).
back to top
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 Publications Coordinator will send the Editor a letter requesting that the Publications Coordinator handle the submission's review process. Please be advised that we will give the Editor's identify once reviewers are assigned. Should the Editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead administratively reject the submission, he or she will be required to fill out a review form as an anonymous reviewer.
If the author sends a submission directly to an Editor, the author should be instructed to submit their submission to Manuscript Central. The Publications Coordinator 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 not only ensures that our submissions are tracked properly, but also that each submission receives a fair and unbiased review. Any submission that does not go through the review process via Manuscript Central and the Publications Coordinator will not be recognized as a Computing in Science & Engineering submission and hence may not be published by Computing in Science & Engineering.
As soon as possible, but definitely within a two-week period, the Editor should send the Publications Coordinator a set of confirmed reviewer names by email. The names should be accompanied by full names and email addresses. The Editor should 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 Publications Coordinator 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 three-week deadline for reviews, unless the Editor makes specific arrangements with a reviewer to review more or less quickly.
The Publications Coordinator will forward the reviews to the Editor as they are received. Ideally an Editor should have two reviews before making a recommendation on a submission. At that time, the Editor may recommend an "accept" or a "reject" for the submission or request a "major revision" for re-review. Sometimes Editors will also request a "minor revision." In that case, the Editor should personally re-review the submission before giving it a final acceptance.
The Editor is to notify the Publications Coordinator of the recommendation; the Publications Coordinator will notify the author of the decision, copying the Editor.
If a major revision is recommended, the revision will again 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 Editor's discretion.
If a submission is accepted, the authors are given a publication checklist and are asked to prepare their final manuscripts. If a minor revision is asked for, after receiving a copy of the final manuscript, the Publications Coordinator will send a copy of the submission to the Editor for a final decision.
back to top
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 whatsoever. The submission will not be seen again by the Editor or by the reviewers. The Editor in Chief makes the final decision.
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 previously required. This may cause problems in the future if reviewers were to 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 version 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.
A "reject" decision means 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 magazine's scope. We ask that the Editor suggest a more suitable journal for submission.
back to top
Supplemental Material Guidelines
Supplemental material includes Web-only addenda and extra graphics in addition to the authors' completed manuscript. We prefer that the authors submit this type of material after discussion with Computing in Science & Engineering's Publications Assistant.
back to top