PEER REVIEW
 

Reviewer Information for Magazines

Author Information
Editor Information
Reviewer Information
Editor in Chief Information
Guest Editor Information
Reviewer Information

Review Process

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

We hope that you’ll be able to submit your review within the given time frame assigned (normally three to four 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 maintain our reputation for quality and integrity, so we sincerely appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time and expertise.

Preliminary/Conference Version(s)

If an author used their own previously published material as a basis for a new submission, then please check to ensure that they have cited the previous work(s) and have clearly indicated how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s).

Also included should be a brief description of the differences between the papers. You may use the public comments section of the review form to include your thoughts, if any, regarding the differences between the two papers.

 

New Reviewer Information

Thank you for your interest in becoming a reviewer. All article submissions to the IEEE Computer Society are peer-reviewed, so it is only through the efforts of volunteers like you that we are able to maintain our magazines’ quality.

We assign three to seven reviewers per submission according to the publication and/or an article’s topic. If you happen to be one of them, we will send you an email request. You are free to accept or decline any request. Usually, we expect you to finish the review within three weeks.

Please go to our online peer review system, ScholarOne Manuscripts, and check whether you already have an existing account with the IEEE Computer Society (because you have volunteered in some capacity in the past). If you have an account, please check that the information is up to date, especially that we have the correct keywords representing your expertise areas. This is how we match reviewers to submissions. If you do not have an account, please create one. We look forward to having you participate in our peer review process.

Keywords/Taxonomy

The keywords linked to each paper are taken from the ACM taxonomy. (This is an extended version of the ACM Computing Classification System; Copyright ©2003 ACM, used with permission.)  Keywords should closely reflect the topic of the paper and optimally characterize it. They link papers to appropriate reviewers. You should add 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.

 

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 editor, guest editor, and editor in chief if there are any conflicts of interest involved in refereeing a paper, including any, real, perceived, or potential conflict of interest between you and any coauthor. Conflict of Interest is defined in IEEE Policies, Section 9.8 – Conflict Of Interest.

Dos and Don’ts

These are guidelines reviewers should follow.

DO

  • 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.
  • Recognize word limits (see below) and look at the references for appropriateness.
  • Reject manuscripts that require extensive revision.
  • Reject manuscripts with trivial or insignificant results and minor contributions to the subject area even if they are well written.

DON’T

  • Review manuscripts you find personally objectionable.
  • Review manuscripts that are not interesting to you.
  • Identify yourself or your own work.
  • Include personal comments and biases about the author and subject matter.
  • Reject manuscripts that require simple reorganization that can be fixed during revision.
  • 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.

 

Manuscript Text Requirements

Contact Us

IEEE Computer Society
10662 Los Vaqueros Circle
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
USA
+1 714 821 8380