Editor Information for Journals

The ScholarOne Manuscripts Editor Basics video tutorial is available to help you navigate through the system. As an editor, you are responsible for understanding and helping us implement our peer review policies and procedures.

If you need your user ID and/or password, or have any problems using ScholarOne Manuscripts, please contact the journal administrator.

The editor, as a member of the editorial board of the publication, is responsible for ensuring that the publication maintains the highest quality while adhering to the publication policies and procedures of both the Computer Society and the IEEE. Although you may currently be serving as an editor or reviewer for one or more publications of other IEEE Societies, the procedures for the Computer Society’s journals may be different. Therefore, we request that you read through our guidelines at least once, to familiarize yourself with our procedures, and to understand how you will be interacting with the support staff, the reviewers, and the authors in fulfilling the important role of the editor.

If the author sends a submission directly to the editor, he/she should be instructed to submit his/her paper to ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M). The Journal Administrator (JA) checks the submission for compliance to our guidelines (i.e. page length) and then notifies the editor in chief (EIC) that the manuscript is ready for an editor assignment (Note: It may or may not be the editor who originally received the paper).  This ensures not only that our submissions are tracked properly, but also that each paper receives a fair and unbiased review. Papers submitted by authors directly to the editors should not be sent out for review. Any paper that does not go through the review process in ScholarOne Manuscripts will not be recognized as a submission and may not be published.

The most important role of the editor is the identification of appropriate reviewers for a manuscript.  The EIC sends the editor a letter requesting that he/she handle the review process. Editors should assign three confirmed or five unconfirmed reviewers or administratively reject the paper in S1M within the provided deadline. Should the editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead administratively reject the paper, he/she must include a detailed explanation of why the paper does not warrant reviewer assignment in the “Comments to the Author” section of the editor recommendation form.

Should a manuscript warrant reviewer assignment, the editor should personally secure the agreement of the reviewers to conduct the review in the allotted time before officially assigning them on as referees. This is central to the peer review process and triggers activities in S1M that set the peer review of a manuscript in motion. Therefore, it is extremely important that reviewers understand that the time frame established for conducting the peer review, that the reviewers agree to this schedule, and that accurate contact information (in particular the e-mail address) for each reviewer is maintained in the S1M reviewer database. When a reviewer is chosen, the editor must check for any inaccuracies with the reviewer’s information in the S1M database before assigning a paper to them or add a new reviewer (after first searching for them) who is not yet in the system. Corrections to the reviewer’s information must be communicated to the appropriate JA prior to assignment.

Reviewers are principally identified through peer contact, through the reviewer database in the S1M, or from references listed at the end of the manuscript. In rare circumstances, such as when when a field is extremely narrow or new, it may be necessary for the author to suggest possible expert reviewers.  This is an exception and the resulting reviewers may not be completely unbiased. This process should be used only in exceptional cases, since using these reviewers may compromise the confidentiality of the review process.  It is preferable to use references in papers published by the suggested reviewers as an augmented pool from which to draw potential reviewers. Note that the Computer Society’s digital library, and other databases like the IEEE’s Xplore can be used effectively to augment the reference list and database entries of S1M.

It is extremely important that the schedule for conducting the review be met; one way to ensure timely reviews, and that a reviewer not feel overwhelmed, is to request no more than two reviews from a single individual at any given time. Also, there are occasions when reviewers may need assistance when performing their reviews. The first line of communication, when problems arise concerning the review itself, is the editor. The editor must be available for such communication by email or by phone, and responsive to such requests.

S1M will notify the editor and JA as soon as the required number of reviews are received. Manuscripts submitted to the IEEE Computer Society journals normally receive three independent reviews. IEEE policy requires that no fewer than two reviews be obtained. Sometimes, in a very narrow field, due to workload or other factors, it can be difficult to secure a third review. In those cases and with Editor in Chief approval, it is permissible to have two reviews plus the review of the editor. Three reviews should be the norm and the editor must find at least three reviewers who accept to review the manuscript by the 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 editor may recommend an “accept,” “reject,” “resubmit as new,” or “major revision” for re-review. Editors may also request a “minor revision.” In that case, the editor must personally re-review the paper before giving it a final acceptance. The editor is to complete and submit the recommendation form located in the paper’s manuscript details. The EIC will render the final decision and will notify the author and editor of that decision.

If a major revision is recommended, the revision will 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 at the discretion of the editor. If a minor revision is required, the JA will notify the editor for a final recommendation after receiving a copy of the manuscript. If a paper is accepted, the authors are given a publication checklist and are asked to prepare their final manuscript.

As an editor of the editorial board, you will be contributing greatly to our prestigious journal and our high standards of peer review. The role of the editor in scholarly publishing is a very important one: management of the peer review of manuscripts by members of the peer review community. The IEEE Computer Society requires the peer review of all papers that appear in our journals are selected for publication only on the basis of merit and appropriateness.

The editors for the publications of the IEEE Computer Society are responsible for the consistently high marks our journals receive in the peer review community. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality and value of our publications are increased.

The Computer Society has been taking steps improve the time from manuscript submission to publication. One of the hallmarks of quality scholarly publishing lies in rapid publication. These efforts will culminate with ScholarOne Manuscripts, our fully electronic submission and review system. A set of procedures has been devised to significantly reduce our submission-to-publication window from 2+ years to less than 1.5 years. The new procedures under which you will perform your duties as an editor should be considered as “standard operating procedure.”

IEEE Review Process Statement (Section 8.2.2.A)

The policies contained in this Section 8.2.2.A shall apply to the Editors of all regular technical periodical IEEE publications, except IEEE SPECTRUM and Society newsletters. At no time should a manuscript be accepted or published in an archival journal without prior review of the complete manuscript by two or more independent referees conversant with the pertinent subject area.

IEEE requires that referees treat the contents of papers under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides. Contents of abstracts submitted to conference program committees should be regarded as confidential as well, and handled in the same manner.

Periodicals which are published in cooperation with non-IEEE organizations must have a review policy that ensures the quality of the papers. The policies of the non-IEEE organizations should be generally consistent with the IEEE requirements contained in this Section 8.2.2.A.

To access Section 8.2.2.A – The Review Process in its entirety, visit the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual.

Comments Paper

A comments paper is a paper commenting on an error one has found or a disagreement one has with a previously published paper. The JA retrieves as much information as possible about the published paper being commented on and forwards the information to the Editor in Chief (EIC) via ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M). If the editor who was assigned to the previously published paper is no longer available, the EIC assigns the comments paper to another editor whose expertise areas closely match that paper’s topic. The editor reviews the comments paper and if they believe the commenting authors may have a valid point, they contact the previously published paper’s authors with an invitation to review and respond with a rebuttal.

If the authors agree, they gain access to the comments paper (as reviewers) & receive a deadline in S1M.  The editor is notified when the authors have submitted their response/review in the system.  If the published paper’s authors agree with the comments paper’s authors, the editor may then decide to publish the comments paper. If the published paper’s authors disagree with the comments paper’s authors, the editor may choose to either reject the comments paper (if the published authors proved the comments paper’s authors were unfounded) or have the JA send the response/review to the comments paper’s authors for their counter rebuttal.

After receiving the counter rebuttal, the editor may either reject the comments paper or choose to publish both the comments paper and the original authors’ response.  In fairness to both parties involved, if the editor chooses to publish the comments paper despite the original author’s disagreement, they should publish their response too.

If the editor wants to send the comments paper to the published paper’s reviewers, the reviewers should be given copies of both papers to review. Please note that regardless whether or not the original reviewers are contacted, the original authors should also be called upon to review the comments paper. Everyone should be given a deadline, at the editor’s discretion, to submit his or her response. In order to be fair to all the authors, if the original authors respond arguing against the comments paper, then their response should also be sent to the reviewers.

Sometimes an editor may be more apt to ask the published paper’s reviewers to review the comments paper if they are taking over from a retired editor and are not familiar with handling the comments paper without getting the insight from other experts in the field. Nonetheless, the published papers’ author(s) should always be contacted.

Concurrent or Duplicate Submission

Submissions to IEEE Computer Society journals must represent original material. We discourage submitting to more than one publication at one time. If it is determined that a paper (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 is completed, the paper will be automatically rejected.

Papers are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has been neither submitted to, nor published in, another journal. Concurrent submission to other publications and these journals is viewed as a serious breach of ethics and, if detected, will result in immediate rejection of the submission. Papers 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 papers have undergone substantial revision. The question regarding concurrent submission appears during the submission process in ScholarOne Manuscripts.

The guidelines for handling concurrent submissions are as follows:

1. If the journal administrator (JA) is informed of a possible concurrent submission, they immediately contact the editor handling the paper and the EIC.
2. The editor handling the paper in question and EIC at the other journal/publication are contacted to determine the status of the paper submitted to them. We also request a copy of that paper.
3. If the other paper is still undergoing review, both journals “swap” papers for comparison. The editors and EICs of both journals are involved in this process.
4. Based on the policy mentioned above, if the editors determine a clear case of concurrent submission, the manuscript is immediately rejected. The EIC sends the decision letter to the author via ScholarOne Manuscripts, using the dual submission letter template provided by the JA.

Preliminary or Conference Version

If the authors provided a previously published conference submission, please take the time before assigning reviewers, to check the submission to determine whether there has been sufficient new material added to warrant publication. Section 8.2.1.B.9 of the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations (PSPB) Manual (PDF) specifies that authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another refereed publication. If an author used their own previously published material as a basis for a new submission, then they are required to cite the previous work(s) and clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s).  Please keep in mind that this 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.

Per the IEEE PSPB policy, papers that do not meet “a minimum criterion for technical substance established for the periodical” may be administratively rejected pending consultation and agreement of the EIC and at least two editorial board members.  Based on this policy, if you think that the paper is unsuitable for further review please select/assign the second editorial board member (instructions are in the editor assignment letter).  You will be able to post your Administrative Reject recommendation after the review is submitted in the system.  Please be sure to include detailed comments to the author on why the paper is not suitable.

Supplemental Material

IEEE Computer Society journals accept supplemental materials for review with submissions. These materials may be published on our digital library with the electronic version of the paper, where they can be accessed for free. A pointer to the supplemental material will be included in the printed version.

If the author has included supplemental material, reviewers will be required to answer two supplemental material related questions during the review process.

IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given maximum of 4 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 3 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 1 week to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society

• Editors have 1 day to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 1 week to review the paper.
• Editors are given 1 day to submit a decision.

IEEE Transactions on Computers

• Editors have 6 days to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 2 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 2 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 1 week to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

Note: A one-time-only request of extension could exceptionally be presented, provided that it is sent both to the editor in chief (EIC) and to the TC Peer Review Support Specialist, and that it is received not later than 2 weeks before the expiration of the submission deadline. The request should be motivated and the EIC, based on the reasons in support to the request, can grant an one-time-extension by at most one additional month.

IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given a maximum of 6 weeks to review the paper.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of  1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 1 week to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials. Note: These times are indicative and extensions can be given as needed.

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

• Editors have 3 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 5 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 3 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 3 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given a maximum of 4 weeks to review the paper.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 1 week to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems

• Editors have 1 week to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 6 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Services Computing

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 3 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 2 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 3 weeks to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 1 week to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

• Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to review the paper.
• Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.
• Editors are given 1 week to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in.
• Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.*
• Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.
• Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation.
• Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

*The JA will send the author several reminders before contacting the editor, with a copy to the EIC, requesting permission to close the paper’s file. If you approve, the JA will notify the author that we are closing their file, but that they can resubmit. Although the resubmitted paper will be given a new log number and a new set of dates, the author will be told that if they include their previous log number with the resubmission, we will link the new paper to the previous version. This same procedure may be applied to minor revisions.

As the editor, you play a vital role with helping our papers move through the review process. This is especially true if we are having difficulties with getting enough reviewer feedback to make a decision. Here are some general suggestions of what you can do help expedite the review process:

Send personal reminders to your reviewers. ScholarOne Manuscripts sends up to three automated reviewer reminders. Although these three automated reminders are found to be very effective, receiving a personal reminder from the assigned editor, who is also a peer from the community, has much more impact. As the editor, you will be copied on the system’s third reminder. This should be a trigger for you follow up with the reviewer. To do so, click on their name link under the review section of the paper’s manuscript details.

Alternatively, we have set ScholarOne Manuscripts to highlight papers with reviewers who have been sent three reminders. This will indicate that the paper has become an “outlier”. To see which reviewers require a personal reminder from you, do the following:

1. Log onto ScholarOne Manuscripts.
2. Go into the Editor Center.
3. Click on the ‘Overdue Reviewer Scores’ View.
4. A list of the papers and their delinquent reviewers highlighted in red will pull up.
5. To send a message to the reviewer, click on their name link and a new message will open in your email program.
6. If you want to first view the ms details for the paper (i.e., the comments section) to get a clearer understanding of the paper before contacting the reviewer, click on the checkmark icon that appears under the “Take Action” section of the manuscript record.
7. Scroll down to the “Reviewer List” section to see the reviewer details.
8. Any correspondence to the reviewer should be done in the system by clicking on their name link. This will save a copy of the correspondence section of the manuscript details.
9. Make a recommendation once you have three reviews even if you have some outstanding. If one or two reminders have been sent to the remaining reviewers, you can inform them that you will be making a decision and give them a shorter deadline (i.e., one or two weeks) to submit their reviews. If they do not submit their reviews by the given deadline, proceed with making a recommendation.  If three reminders have already been sent, then you should determine whether or not assigning a confirmed alternate reviewer(s) is more appropriate.
10. Inform your last reviewer that theirs is the last review you’re trying to obtain. Informing a reviewer that you need their comments in order to make a recommendation often helps them better understand the added priority of submitting their review, especially if it is late and/or the other reviews give conflicting recommendations.

• The editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the editor’s own assessment of the manuscript. The editor’s recommendation must be well-justified and explained in detail. If the editor’s recommendation conflicts with the reviews, or if the reviews conflict with each other, editors must be careful to explain the basis of their recommendation to help avoid an appeal of the Editor in Chief’s (EIC) decision. In cases where revisions (major or minor) are requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained in the “Comments to Authors” section of the recommendation form. The EIC must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. All decisions are final.
  • Accept: An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the paper “as is” and with no further changes whatsoever. The paper will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers.
  • Major Revision: A major revision means that the paper 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 paper that they did not have a chance to re-review. If a paper has already gone through two rounds of reviews, the option of a second major revision is not available.
  • Minor Revision: The minor 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.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
  • Revise and Resubmit as “New”: This reject decision may be an alternative to asking for a second major revision.
  • Administrative Reject: The editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies.
  • Administrative Reject – Out of Scope: The manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal. Please suggest a more suitable journal for submission.

  Second Major Revision

  There is no rule against a second major revision as such; however, we strongly advise against it since the authors were already given specific instructions in the past and did not fulfill the requirements. If a major overhaul is required to the current version of the paper before it can be considered for the journal, we suggest closing the current file and recommending rejection. This will give the authors an unlimited amount of time to thoroughly revise their paper and resubmit it as new.

  A recommendation of “Revise and Resubmit as New” is available. Editors may recommend that the author resubmit the paper as new as an alternative to asking for a second major revision. If you wish, we can instruct the authors to request the same Editor be assigned to their new paper, increasing the chances of an expedited review. Overall, this procedure will help avoid damaging the journal’s submission to publication time, which is one of the foundations of its highly regarded reputation.

Terms of Service

The formal term of appointment of an editor is two years, renewable once. The journals editor in chief (EIC) makes the appointment. During the formal term, the editor functions as a member of the editorial board for the publication; however, although the formal (voting) term of an editor may end according to the calendar, the informal term continues until all manuscripts assigned to that editor have been peer reviewed and a final disposition has been made.

It is extremely important that when an editor is contemplating being away from “home base” for two or more weeks, that the JA be notified of the absence and be provided with at least one means of emergency contact (e-mail, phone, fax).

Because an editor is advised prior to acceptance of the terms of service and responsibilities of the post, he/she is not relieved of such duties during any protracted absences from home base, or during sabbatical. In the case that a long absence is necessary, the editor must establish a means for his/her work as an editor to continue effectively, and the JA must be provided, and updated, with full contact information as the editor moves from one location to another. In exceptional cases, the editor may request a suspension of the term of service, which will be determined by the EIC of the publication. Even in such cases, it is expected that the editor will follow up with final recommendations on any pending manuscripts.

Workload

The EIC will assign an editor to the manuscript based on a paper’s subject area. As a norm, an editor shall not be assigned more than three manuscripts per month during his/her term of service. This does not mean that each editor will only receive three manuscripts each month, as editors covering popular subject areas may be more active than others. Any difficulties with workload should be reported immediately to the JA and EIC. Temporary relief can be administered to ensure workloads do not fall behind.

How do I check the status of the papers that I am handling without going to the journal coordinator?

You have access to the status of your assigned papers at any time through your Editor Dashboard in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Click on the manuscript list title to view a full listing of manuscripts in each status, or click on the number next to the list to jump directly to the first manuscript in the list.

How do I gain access to my assigned papers while I am traveling?

You may request emailed copies of your assigned papers from the journal coordinator if you have problems accessing them through ScholarOne Manuscripts. However, please be aware that all actions and recommendations must be made through the system in order to maintain accurate records & in order to move the review process along.

How many reviews should be submitted before I can make a decision?

We require at least three submitted reviews and on rare cases, the EIC may allow two.

What do I do if I have a conflict of interest with the author of a particular paper that has been assigned to me?

Click on the EIC’s name link from the manuscript’s record in ScholarOne Manuscripts to send an email requesting that the paper be reassigned to another editor due to a conflict of interest.

An author of a paper I handled has decided to appeal my decision. What do I do?

Contact the EIC via email, forwarding a copy of the author’s email appealing the decision (if possible). The EIC will review the appeal and then provide instructions on how he/she would like to proceed.