Writing and Publishing

The Editorial Process Reviewers Revise, Editors Decide

The Editorial Process Submission Revision Acceptance Required files submission Proof correction Publication (online and offline)

The Editorial Process Role of EDITOR-IN-CHIEF (EIC) Associate EDITOR (AE) and REVIEWERS

Satisfying Reviewers A research article is usually evaluated by a panel of experts before it is accepted for publication. This process is called “The Peer Review Process”. The process entails the scrutiny of the paper by a number (usually 3 or more) of eminent authorities or experts in the field. They would study the paper independently (and blind to each other and often to the name of the author) and independently write a report on the suitability of a paper proposed for publication. In doing so, they look for and view the paper from the perspectives – at least - of:

Style/language/presentation Interest and relevance Technical robustness Clarity Style/language/presentation Interest and relevance Appropriateness for venue The reviewers usually rate the paper from each of these perspectives and even at times with respect to many attributes of each perspective. Most publications also ask the reviewer to provide an overall “acceptance” rating for each paper. In addition to comments, the reviewers need to rate the manuscript in each of different aspects (Example)

Possible outcomes of the manuscript in the review process Acceptance without revision (a rare event) Acceptance with minor revisions Revise (major changes – usually with additional experiments required; Editor usually sends the revised manuscript back to one or more of original reviewers) Reject (with encouragement to re-submit after extensive revisions and addition of new experimental data to address the flaws/issues in the original manuscript) Reject (submit to another journal) – sometimes article transfer

Response from the Editors Desk reject (25%) - Be ready for straight away rejection Lack of fit with journal Desk revise (5%) A new revision may be sent to reviewers Reject with reviewer comments (30%) Revise and resubmit (40%) Of the revise and resubmit requests, almost 50% are eventually published

These ratings are usually: Accept without any modifications Accept with minor stylistic modifications to the satisfaction of the editor Accept with minor structural or technical modifications as advised Accept after modifications sought have been reviewed Reject out-right

A look at the reviewer’s checklist (APL) Is the paper especially important, interesting, and timely enough to warrant rapid publication in APL? Is the paper original? (extension of recent work or serial submissions designed solely to meet length requirement are not suitable for publication in APL) Does the paper contain sufficient Physics, as opposed to recipes or fabrication? (Device proposals without substantial experiment support are unacceptable for publication in APL) Is the paper well organized? Is the paper clearly written and free from errors or ambiguities? The first five are the most important!

A look at the reviewer’s checklist (APL) Is sufficient information included (or cited) to support the assertions made and conclusions drawn? Is the English satisfactory? Is the title appropriate and short? Does the abstract include the important points of the paper? Are the tables, figures and captions clear? Are references to related work adequate? OVERALL RATING: ( ) Poor, ( ) Fair, ( ) Good, ( ) Very Good, ( ) Excellent

Reviewer’s Remarks and Recommendation (APL) Comments to the Author: Comments to the Editor: RECOMMENDATION: Publish in APL as is Publish in APL with optional revision Publish in APL with mandatory revision (minor) Reconsider for APL after mandatory revision (major) Reject Recommended referral to another journal Which journal: -----

What gets you accepted? Attention to details Check and double check your work Consider the reviews English must be as good as possible Presentation is important Take your time with revision Acknowledge those who have helped you New, original and previously unpublished Critically evaluate your own manuscript Ethical rules must be obeyed ACCEPTANCE

Reasons for early rejection Limited interest of paper Routine application of a well-known method No novelty Failure to meet submission requirements Incomplete coverage of literature Unacceptably poor English

Rejections Articles can be rejected for various reasons For example, your topic does not have a wide audience (for Nature, Science journal etc.) Some conferences accept only 15% But you get valuable reviews Think twice before complaining (appeal) Reviewers are anonymous, don’t try to guess who it is Use the criticism constructively –if they misunderstood you, others will do as well Consider sending it elsewhere

Rejection : not the end of the world

Dealing with Rejection A rejection can be upsetting, and it is often sensible to let at least 24 hours pass before thinking about your next steps. It is not a good idea to fire off an angry e-mail to the editor asking for explanation or saying that the process was unfair. Even after careful consideration, if you think there has been a misunderstanding or error, some journals would entertain a request for reconsideration, usually in the form of an email explaining you the point of view. In most cases, the best and most time-efficient course is to reassess quickly your choice of journal, fix any weaknesses that may have been pointed out in the review process, reformat the paper for your second-choice journal and send it off. About 70% of the papers rejected in Science are eventually published elsewhere.

If rejected— Submit elsewhere Understand why it is rejected Go back and think about the ways the new journal is different Make your new version different

If revision is requested Try to understand what the reviewers want Sometimes they were wrong Sometimes you were wrong Sometimes you were not clear Show you are responsive to the issues raised

What happens after your manuscript is accepted for publication? First, the celebration ... Then: Some journals publish the paper online as a PDF file of the final manuscript that was accepted for publication (days to weeks). Within a few weeks, journal sends page proofs of your article as it will appear in printed or electronic form. These proofs need to be read very carefully to check for printer’s errors or other items that need to be corrected. Journals usually want the corrected proofs back within a few days.

How to get your paper accepted? Some tips

Revisit the Editorial Process .. How is AE selected? EIC picks one in the related area from the Editorial board How are reviewers selected Suggested reviewers Persons he knows or his students or collaborators Reviewer selection tools My previous experiences and reviewers Authors from papers published recently on the same topics Your reference list etc. How do reviewers score – satisfaction How do AEs make decision – Based on reviewers comments

Is it possible to guess the Associate Editor and the Reviewers?? http://cis.ieee.org/ieee-transactions-on-evolutionary-computation.html

If you are able to “Guess” what can you do??

Speeding up review by continuous tracking … Regularly track the progress of review. Email if necessary (show examples)

Dis-satisfied with review Sometimes you feel not satisfied with the review – you can argue but gently (Example) Think twice before you argue