TETC Tips for S1M
This page highlights some of the most important functions within ScholarOne Manuscripts and tips for using the system more efficiently.
ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M) Tips for TETC
Prepared by Alexandra Titta (firstname.lastname@example.org), IEEE Peer Review Support
- Manuscripts submitted to the transactions of the IEEE Computer Society normally receive three independent peer reviews. IEEE policy requires that no fewer than two peer reviews be conducted. Sometimes, in a very narrow field, due to workload or other factors, it is extremely difficult to secure a third review. In that event, it is permissible to have two peer reviews plus the review of the editor; however, three reviews should be the norm. Therefore, the editor must find at least three reviewers who accept to review the manuscript by the agreed three-week deadline. In the event that the editor provides the one of the reviews, this review should have the explicit indication that they have performed it.
- The queues in the Editor Centers show active papers, but editors can always view any manuscript they have handled in the past, even if the paper is decided. To look up a paper, simply use the manuscript ID search located on your dashboard. The ID must be typed exactly, or you can use a * for a wildcard search. For instance, typing only * in the ID search box will bring back any paper you ever handled, whereas typing *TETC-2015-05-0178* will bring back all versions of that particular paper.
- Preferred Reviewers and Conflict of Interest: Authors can include suggested/preferred reviewers with each submission. These preferred reviewers will be listed in the Select Reviewers area, directly above the reviewer search tool. Authors are asked to avoid suggesting reviewers from their institution or collaborators in research projects, but if you are unsure if a reviewer constitutes a conflict of interest, please contact the Senior Editor or EIC in charge of your paper to advise. Also, please note that decisions should be made based on a mix of preferred and independent reviewers, and only one preferred reviewer should be used per submission.
- As the Associate Editors, it is assumed that you are reading the manuscripts assigned to you in detail prior to sending them for review. Additionally, please make sure to thoroughly review the comments submitted by reviewers before making a decision on a manuscript, and not base the decision solely on the overall recommendations. We have seen several instances where reviewers have left very brief comments and a paper has been rejected, but with
almost no justification to the author. Likewise, there have been several instances where reviewer comments have been sent to the author, and the author has pointed out that the comments were for an entirely different manuscript.
- When you receive a manuscript, please watch for unnecessary claims in the title of a manuscript (such as new, novel, advanced, unique, first demonstration, etc.). Although these do not always constitute an issue, you should scrutinize the use of such claims in the abstract or body, and use your judgment about whether these are justified. As always, if you are unsure, you can contact the Senior Editor or EIC in charge of the manuscript for guidance.
- If you notice a problem with a manuscript file, such as corrupted text, or if the author contacts you and says they need to make a correction, it is not necessary to reject the paper. Please contact me at email@example.com and I can make the correction in the system. Often I can fix a corrupted file without needing to contact the author, and I can also switch out existing files as needed without rejecting or sending the submission back to the author center.
- Authors are asked when they receive a revision decision to submit resubmissions with the changes highlighted within the file. If you are going to ask for a clean copy as well, please ask for it via email and I can add it to the submission package. Please do not reject a paper for this reason.
- If you come across a reviewer with multiple user accounts, please let me know so that I can merge them. When a reviewer has more than one account, they may not be receiving important communications from the system (because it could be going to an outdated e-mail address). It is important to remember that reviewers can have similar names, so it is crucial to make sure that the duplicate accounts all belong to one user before the merge.
- If a reviewer is looking to extend their deadline, you may grant the extension within the Reviewer List for the manuscript. Simply click on the Grant an Extension link to the right of their name and select the new due date from the calendar and click the Go button.
- Difficulty viewing the HTML and PDF proofs are most commonly caused by pop-up blocking software. Pop-up blocking software is so common now that many internet browsers and even the Google toolbar come installed with them. We recommend that you disable popup blocking software when using Manuscript Central.
- If you accidentally commit a decision to manuscript and you need it to be reversed, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I will be able to reverse the decision for you, as this functionality is limited to the admin role.
- If a submitting author asks how to submit their manuscript to a specific Special Issue, please let them know that all Special Issue papers for TETC should be submitted simply as “Special Issue.” You can remind them to signify which Special Issue they are submitting to in their cover letter. The EIC will place the manuscript in the correct SI queue upon completion of the checklist.
- If you are a Special Issue Guest Editor, please know that your Special Issue access will be given through an e-mail alias that will be provided to you via a welcome e-mail. If you do not receive the e-mail alias information, or your personal e-mail address on the posted Call for Papers is incorrect, please contact me at email@example.com for assistance.
- If at any time you are unsure if an e-mail correspondence was sent through the system, you can always check the e-mail history in the Audit Trail tab on the left hand side of the manuscript’s Manuscript Information page. You can also resend and forward previously sent e-mails from the audit trail list. This is a great tool to use to keep track of the full communication history of a paper.