CG&A Associate Editor and Guest Editor Guidelines
Strive to always have at least three reviewers, better four. In exceptional cases (such as when you have asked 10+ other reviewers and they all declined), two reviewers will do, especially, if a third review would lengthen the review time considerably. In such a case, please consult with the editor-in-chief (EIC) or the associate editor-in-chief (AEIC) first.
Carefully examine the reviews. When a review is overly short, please rescind. In our research domain, it is customary to get detailed, constructive reviews regardless of the overall recommendation.
Please do not assign yourself as a reviewer. This is problematic in terms of bias in decision-making (and is not allowed by the IEEE). If you cannot find qualified reviewers to commit to reviewing the manuscript in a timely fashion, do not hesitate to consult with the AEIC and/or the EIC.
We respect a double-blind reviewing process if so requested by the author. However, if the author(s) choose to disclose their identity, that is fine as well.
Be reasonable, but be critical. We do get enough submissions to fill all our issues. We strive to have high-quality papers that will be well-cited. We are interested in publishing papers that fit the magazine’s scope.
The AEIC would administratively reject a submission that is clearly below quality standard or out of scope without making an AE or GE assignment. Nevertheless, we suggest you to always examine the assigned manuscript before assigning reviewers. When it is clear to you that the content of the submission is either out of scope or below the acceptable quality standard of CG&A you may editorially reject without pursuing a full review process. This can be done by changing the required number of reviews to zero and then submitting your recommendation to the AEIC. However, you need to consult with two other members of the editorial board first (please contact the EIC and AEIC). (Please read Section 8.2.2 A. 3. Prescreening of Articles of the PSPB).
Avoid all conflicts of interest (COIs). (Please read Section 2.6.2 A. Definitions and Section 8.2.2 A. 2. Handling of Articles Authored by Publications Volunteers of the PSPB). Since the IEEE definitions left room for interpretations, we have adopted the COI rules from the Visualization and Graphics Technical Community (VGTC), which state that COIs include (but are not limited to) situations in which:
- You are a co-author of the work.
- You have a strong affiliation with the same institution as one of the authors. This includes your current employment as a professor, adjunct professor, visiting professor, or similar position, in the role of a consulting or advisory arrangement, previous employment with the institution within the last 12 months, being considered for employment at the institution, any role as an officer, governing board membership, or relevant committee, or the current enrollment as a student.
- You have been directly involved in the work and will be receiving credit in some way. If you’re a member of the author’s thesis committee, and the paper is about his or her thesis work, then you were involved.
- You suspect that others might see a COI in your involvement. For example, even though Microsoft Research in Seattle and Beijing are in some ways more distant than Berkeley and MIT, there is likely to be a perception that they are “both Microsoft” and folks from one should not review papers from the other.
- You have collaborated with one of the authors in the past three years. Collaboration is usually defined as having written a paper, book, or grant proposal together, although you should use your judgment.
- You were the MS/PhD advisor of one of the authors or the MS/PhD advisee of one of the authors. Funding agencies typically consider advisees to represent a lifetime COI.
- You are related to one of the co-authors. This includes spouse, child, sibling, or parent, as well as any affiliation or relationship of your spouse, of your minor child, of a relative living in your immediate household, or of anyone who is legally your partner that you are aware of.
- Other relationships, such as close personal friendship, that you think might tend to affect your judgment or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.
Please familiarize yourself with CG&A‘s Author Submission Requirements. It might also be worthwhile to read the Computer Society’s Reviewer Information page (especially the “Conduct of the Referee” section).
CG&A aims to have the fastest review times on the planet (without sacrificing quality). This means that we are striving to always attend to newly assigned manuscripts by quickly assigning reviewers and pushing the reviewers to finish in time. Overall, it should be possible to have a suggestion ready within two months or less. Please follow these tips:
- Find reviewers in two weeks or less. Start right away to make this happen. I know we are all busy, please try to prioritize this. You should not have to do this more than 2-4 times a year! Hence, we could expect you to be speedy. THANK YOU.
- If you have trouble finding reviewers who commit, please consult the AEIC and/or the EIC.
- Experience shows that it would be good to assign 8-12 reviewers in the beginning to have 3-4 who will commit and do the review in time.
- If one reviewer delays his or her review by too long, see whether you can make a recommendation with the reviews you already have.
- Reviewers get three weeks to make their reviews. Please make the extra effort to contact them via email or other means if they seem to be late.
We are always on the lookout for great images for the magazine’s cover. If an article you accept provides great imagery, please promote it to the AEIC or EIC.