Peer Review—Magazines

Computer Magazine

Reviewer Center

Submit a manuscriptEvery article published in Computer is reviewed in advance of publication to evaluate its contribution and ensure technical veracity. Authors may request that their names and affiliations be withheld from the reviewers. Two types of feature submissions—Perspectives and Computing Practices—are reviewed by a panel of editors who have special interest in and knowledge of Computer's mission. Research Features and features submitted to a special issue must pass a peer review process consistent with that conducted by other standard technical periodicals. Only those articles deemed to be the most significant, innovative, and of high interest are chosen for publication.

Conduct of the Referee

To guarantee fairness to the author, the reviewer for a paper submitted to the IEEE Computer Society should abide by a number of guidelines including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Respond within the allotted time.
  • Provide sound, constructive reviews.
  • Assume that papers submitted for publication are not meant to be public.
  • Do not use material from a paper you have refereed.
  • Do not share material from a paper you have refereed with others.
  • Do not distribute copies of a paper you have been asked to referee unless the material is already public.
  • Tell the associate editor, guest editor, editor in chief if there are any conflicts of interest involved in refereeing a paper.

The IEEE does outline review guidelines for IEEE referees in the IEEE Policy "6.4.1.B Publication Principles—Reviewers of Manuscripts." Items specific to the conduct of the referee are highlighted here.

< back to top


Although the reviewers may know the name of the writer, writers do not learn the names of the reviewers. Reviewers are instructed not to disclose their identity; authors can also request that their identity not be disclosed. Inappropriate remarks are deleted before material is sent to authors.

< back to top


Reviews must be submitted electronically through ScholarOne Manuscripts. Reviewers are instructed not to keep a copy of the manuscripts reviewed. Until they are accepted for publication, manuscripts are the property of the author.

< back to top

Do's and Don'ts

It takes a good deal of time and effort to develop a manuscript that is technically relevant and readable. Detailed reviews are invaluable for improving overall technical quality, utility, and readability.

  • Keep your review objective.
  • Pay attention to organization and technical content by commenting on the technical significance and accuracy of the work.
  • Identify and note the type of manuscript (research, tutorial, survey, or case study).
  • Comment on the appropriateness of methods, analyses, results, and conclusions.
  • Suggest specific improvements; identify specific areas that can be removed.
  • Correct errors and misconceptions.
  • Recognize that Computer has a word limit of 6,000 words, including 300 words for each figure and table.
  • Look at the references for appropriateness; Computer generally accepts 12 maximum.
  • Provide tips that will help the author to
    • state appropriate, accurate, and relevant conjectures and results;
    • employ better definitions, diagrams, tables, graphs, and examples;
    • present clear applications of the principles contained in the paper;
    • make the article technically consistent and complete; and
    • organize the material to help the reader understand the issues presented.
  • Reject manuscripts that require extensive revision.
  • Reject manuscripts with trivial or insignificant results or minor contributions to the subject area even if they are well written.
  • Review manuscripts you find personally objectionable.
  • Review manuscripts that are not interesting to you.
  • Waste time correcting grammar, spelling, and voice. Staff editors will collaborate with the authors of accepted papers on magazine style and organization.
  • Identify yourself or your own work.
  • Include personal comments and biases about the author and subject matter.
  • Reject manuscripts that require simple reorganization.
  • Reject large papers that try to do too much. Instead, point out which parts are most important and describe how to revise the manuscript to give it focus.

< back to top

Review Process

You may use the public comments section of the review form to address comments to the author about the submission.

We hope that you'll be able to submit your review within the given time frame assigned by the magazine assistant (normally three weeks). The complete review process varies from four to six months, and your timely participation is integral to helping us meet our goals.

The peer review process allows IEEE Computer Society publications to continually present the highest quality articles to its readers and to maintain our reputation for quality and integrity. We appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time and expertise on behalf of Computer.

< back to top


Reviewers who recommend major revisions to an article are instructed to point these out specifically and differentiate optional changes from mandatory ones. If extensive revisions are required, Computer will sometimes reject the manuscript and recommend the preparation of a new, heavily revised version for resubmission. We sometimes must reject a manuscript mainly on the basis of reader interest, and when we do so we try to suggest a more appropriate venue for the article.

< back to top

Special Issue Reviews

Reviews of submissions for special issues are handled entirely by the guest editors, who then supply Computer with the completed reviews. See the Guest Editor Center for more on this process.

< back to top


The keywords linked to each paper are taken from the ACM taxonomy. Keywords should closely reflect the topic of the paper and optimally characterize it. They link papers to appropriate reviewers (for example, reviewers who share the same keywords as the paper). Suggest other keywords if you feel they help to further identify the paper's topic.

We encourage you to enter a minimum of two keywords that reflect your expertise when updating your User Information in ScholarOne Manuscripts. There is no upper limit.

< back to top

Preliminary/Conference Version

If the author provided a previously published conference paper, please check the submission to determine whether a sufficient amount of new material has been added to warrant publication in Computer. New results are not required, however, the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, and so forth, of the conference paper.

< back to top

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool