Peer Review Information for CG&A Editors and Guest Editors

Please read the IEEE Computer Society’s Editor Guidelines and Guest Editor Guidelines for detailed information on peer review responsibilities and workflows. Additionally, please review the following information and tips specific to CG&A.

Examine the manuscript before assigning reviewers to make sure it is within scope and of acceptable quality. Familiarize yourself with CG&A‘s Author Submission Requirements.

Strive for at least three reviewers. 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Decision Timeliness

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. Please read the IEEE Computer Society’s Peer Review Schedules page.

Overall, it should be possible to make a recommendation within two months or less. Please follow these tips:

  • 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.

Conflicts of Interest

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 Operations Manual. 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.