The Review and Publication Process

Background to the Review and Publication Process

Here we explain some aspects of the review process in JCSE, which may assist reviewers and authors responding to a review.

Review criteria

The criteria that we ask reviewers to consider are indicated in the printed review form (this is essentially the same as the online form). These are reasonably typical of technical journals, but one area may differ somewhat, namely that of the standard of English required. It is common for technical journals to undertake editing of papers to 'correct' the English. Many authors will have experienced such corrections that modify their intended meaning and render the paper incorrect. Partly for this reason, and partly because we run on a low budget and do not wish to add to our costs, we require only that the English is clear and unambiguous. We take the view that any editing that is not undertaken, or at least specifically approved, by the author cannot increase the valid information content (since the editor cannot know what was actually in the author's mind). On this basis reviewers are asked to identify any text that is either unclear or ambiguous; they are encouraged to suggest alternatives if they think they know what is intended, but this is not required. We do not require reviewers to note minor grammatical and typographic corrections, nor do we employ copy editors to make such corrections. For these reasons, and because their original text is published in the form of a preprint, authors should take care to ensure that the original standard of English is as good as possible. Please note also, that it is now permitted to publish papers in other languages than English - similar criteria apply to such publication,

Mechanics of review

Reviewer are asked to review the preprint that is originally published in JCSE. In the process of converting a document to the PDF format that is published as a preprint it is possible that some 'artefacts' are introduced, and authors are encouraged to check the preprint for any errors (we have limited resources, and don't guarantee to check every page of every paper that is produced as a preprint).

Reviewers should normally respond by completing teh online review form, as this keeps our labour requirements down. However, if this proves not to be possible, we can accept responses by email to teh Editor, or by mailed hardcopy with hand-written comments. When reviews are submitted as email or as hard copy these are forwarded to authors essentially as-received, but with the reviewer's identification removed. When email or hard copy reviews are submitted, these are printed or scanned to PDF files and inserted into the online process.

There are four major classes of response from the reviewers:

Accept with no changes: In this case the paper is converted to HTML without contacting the authors.
Accept with modification or comments: In this case the review, or the link to the review, is sent to the authors, with a request for the submission of a revised paper. It is very helpful to us if changes made in response to the review can be indicated in some way (e.g. by using 'track changes' in Word to indicate changes compared to the original document). The response to the review is considered by the Editor, who may require further changes if it is not considered that the review has been properly taken into account.
Return for significant modification: In this case the review, or the link to the review is sent to the authors, with a request for the submission of a revised paper. It is very helpful to the reviewer if changes made in response to the review can be indicated in some way (e.g. by using 'track changes' in Word to indicate changes compared to the original document). The revised paper is returned to the original reviewer to check that the revisions are sufficient. The authors may optionally request that the paper is sent to a different reviewer; they may also optionally request that the preprint is withdrawn pending the submission of the revised paper.
Reject: In this case the paper will be rejected, and the preprint will be removed from display. Authors of a paper that has been rejected may resubmit a revised paper, which will be treated as a new submission (except that papers that form a part of a special issue will normally remain with that issue). Resubmitted papers will normally be sent to different reviewers from the original paper.

Publication

Once the paper has completed the review process it will be converted to the special HTML format that is published in JCSE. Once the conversion is complete, authors will be sent a link to the paper, and asked to check it for conversion and other errors. This is the last stage at which authors may change the paper. Once they confirm that the paper is correct, it will be fully published, and any corrections after that point should be made through the comment mechanism.

The continuing life of a paper

Papers published in JCSE have a 'life after publication', as readers may attach comments to them. For this reason it is important that authors remain contactable by email. We achieve this by way of the JCSE registration system, which provides a mechanism for readers to keep their identity up-to-date. We therefore request that all authors register for JCSE, and keep us informed of any changes to their email address. In order to maximise the chances of getting information to authors, we aim to email all authors. This does mean that we shall tend to accept the first response that we get, and all authors should be aware that we shall assume that any author can act on behalf of all authors.