Editor Information for Magazines
How to Use the ScholarOne Manuscript System
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 magazine administrator:
- Computer, email@example.com
- Computing in Science & Engineering, firstname.lastname@example.org
- IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, email@example.com
- IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, firstname.lastname@example.org
- IEEE Intelligent Systems, email@example.com
- IEEE Internet Computing, firstname.lastname@example.org
- IEEE Micro, email@example.com
- IEEE MultiMedia, firstname.lastname@example.org
- IEEE Pervasive Computing, email@example.com
- IEEE Security & Privacy, firstname.lastname@example.org
- IEEE Software, email@example.com
- IT Professional, firstname.lastname@example.org
Editor Guidelines for Regular Submissions
The editor in chief (EIC) will assign an editor to the manuscript based on a submission’s subject area. Should the editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead administratively reject the submission, he/she will be required to include comments in the system that will be returned to the author. The editor’s identity will remain anonymous unless he/she requests to be identified.
Please note, if authors send a submission directly to the editor, they should be instructed to submit their submission to ScholarOne Manuscripts. The editor may or may not be the editor who originally received the submission. This not only ensures that our submissions are tracked properly but also that each submission receives a fair and unbiased review. Every peer-reviewed submission must be processed through ScholarOne Manuscripts.
As soon as possible, but definitely within a two-week period, the editor should select and invite reviewers in ScholarOne Manuscripts. If possible, please contact the reviewers in advance and ask them to agree to do the review. We have found that reviewers are less likely to decline if contacted by the editor directly. The review deadline is generally set to three weeks, and automatic reminders can be adjusted in the system as needed.
Editors are automatically notified as each review is received, with three required reviews as the default. The editor may post a recommendation as “accept,” “reject,” “major revision” for re-review, or “minor revision.”
When the editor posts a recommendation in ScholarOne Manuscripts, the EIC is immediately notified to process the decision to the author, blind-copying the editor.
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 that is at the discretion of the editor.
If a minor revision is requested, the editor is notified to re-review and then enter a recommendation. On occasion, one or more reviewers will also be asked to re-review a minor revision, but that is at the discretion of the editor.
If a submission is accepted, the authors are provided with a publication checklist in order to prepare their final materials.
Concurrent (or Dual) Submissions
Submissions to IEEE Computer Society publications must represent original material. We discourage submitting to more than one publication at one time. If it is determined that a submission (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 at is completed, we will reject the submission.
Submissions 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 this magazine is viewed as a serious breach of ethics and, if detected, will result in immediate rejection of the submission. Submissions 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 submissions have undergone substantial revision.
The guidelines for handling concurrent submissions are as follows:
- If the magazine administrator is informed of a possible concurrent submission, he/she will immediately contact the editor handling the submission and the EIC.
- The EIC of the other magazine/publication is contacted to determine the status of the submission.
- If the other submission is still undergoing review, both publications exchange submissions for comparison.
- If the EICs determine a clear case of concurrent submission, the manuscripts are immediately rejected using the appropriate template letter provided in the system.
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 (PSPB) Operations Manual 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 authors 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 (your identity will not be revealed to the authors).
Supplemental Material Guidelines
Supplemental material includes web-only addenda and extra images in addition to the authors’ completed manuscript. We prefer that authors submit this type of material after discussion with the magazine’s EIC.
Guidelines for Making Recommendations
Note: All recommendations entered into the system are final.
An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the submission “as is” with no further changes required by the reviewers. The submission will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers. The editor in chief makes the final decision.
A major revision means that the submission is returned 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 has been previously required. This may cause problems in the future if reviewers were to see a published submission that they did not have a chance to re-review.
Note: If a submission has already gone through two rounds of reviews, the option of a second major revision is strongly discouraged. There is no rule against a second major revision as such; however, we advise against it because 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 magazine, 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.
The minor revision 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.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication. Some authors may be encouraged to resubmit upon rejection, which may be an alternative to requesting a second major revision.
The Editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies.
Out of Scope
The manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal. We ask that you please suggest a more suitable journal for submission.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I check the status of the papers that I am handling without going to the magazine administrator?
You have access to the status of your assigned papers at any time in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Once you have selected the link to the appropriate category, the information is in the status section of each paper.
Accessing the web on my laptop while I am on travel is not convenient. Can I gain access to my assigned papers through some other method?
The magazine administrator may be asked to email copies of papers to you if you have problems accessing them through ScholarOne Manuscripts. However, please be aware that all decisions and actions must be made through the system.
How many reviews should be submitted before I can make a decision?
We require at least three submitted reviews and on rare cases, the editor in chief may allow two.
What do I do if I have a conflict of interest related to the author of a paper that has been assigned to me?
Click on the editor in chief’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 editor in chief via email, forwarding a copy of the author’s email appealing the decision (if possible). The editor in chief will review the appeal and then provide instructions on how he/she would like to proceed.