IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING

Associate Editors' Guide

Thank you for agreeing to be an Associate Editor for one or more of the transactions, or the Letters of the IEEE Signal Processing Society. The role of the Associate Editor in scholarly publishing is a very important one: management of the peer review of manuscripts by members of the peer community. Peer review of all papers that appear in transactions, journals, or letters publications is required by the IEEE, and papers are selected for publication only on the bases of merit and appropriateness.

The Associate Editors for the publications of the IEEE Signal Processing Society are responsible for the consistently high marks our transactions and letters receive from the peer community. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality--and therefore the value--of a publication is increased.

Since 1996, the Signal Processing Society has been taking steps to improve the time from manuscript submission to publication for the Society''s transactions. As the transactions grew, our time from submission to publication lengthened. One of the hallmarks of quality scholarly publishing lies is rapid publication; thus, the Society took steps to create a staff department to support the activities of the Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors by taking more and more responsibility for the paperwork side of the peer review process.

There are interactions that can only be performed by the Associate Editor to foster communication between the Associate Editor and the reviewer, and between the Associate Editor and the author. These communications are the very essence of the Associate Editor function, and produce the value added by each Associate Editor.

Although you may currently be serving as an Associate Editor or reviewer for one or more publications of other IEEE Societies, the procedures set out for the transactions and letters of the IEEE Signal Processing Society may differ significantly. Heretofore, we request that you read through this entire guide at least once, to get a sense of the flow, and to understand how you will interact with the staff Publications Office, the reviewers, and the authors in fulfilling the important role of Associate Editor.

1.0. BACKGROUND

1.1. Publication Mission

Publications play a major role in implementing the purpose of the IEEE as defined in its constitution and in its vision and mission. Throughout the world IEEE publications serve to advance the theory and practice of electrical and electronic engineering, and allied arts and sciences; to enhance the professional standing of the Institute''s members; and to promote the constructive use of technology for the public welfare.

(IEEE Policy and Procedures, 6.1, 1999)

As an organization of the IEEE, the IEEE Signal Processing Society is responsible for assisting this mission.

More specifically, the Society has established the goal of publishing original, high quality manuscripts pertaining to its fields of endeavor, as established in the Society''s Field of Interest.

1.2. IEEE Signal Processing Society Field of Interest

The Field of Interest of the IEEE Signal Processing Society is:

The theory and application of filtering, coding, transmitting, estimating, detecting, analyzing, recognizing, synthesizing, recording, and reproducing signals by digital or analog devices or techniques. The term "signal" includes audio, video, speech, image, communication, geophysical, sonar, radar, medical, musical, and other signals.

(IEEE Signal Processing Society
Field of Interest Statement
Amended January 1994)

1.3. Publications of the IEEE Signal Processing Society

The IEEE Signal Processing Society fully sponsors publication of the following transactions

IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing (publication begun 1976)
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (publication begun 1992)
IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing (publication begun 1993)
IEEE Signal Processing Letters (publication begun 1993)
Joint IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (begun 1999).

The transactions accept submissions of manuscripts of any length up to 30 double-spaced pages and correspondence items of up to 12 double-spaced pages. The IEEE Signal Processing Letters accepts submissions of manuscripts of up to 10 double-spaced pages. The manuscripts published in the letters cannot exceed four (4) published pages (photos and biographies included).

2.0. AMENDMENTS TO THIS GUIDE

Amendments to this Guide will occur following amendments to procedures by the IEEE Signal Processing Society Publications Board, or in response to changes in policy by the Society''s Board of Governors, or by the IEEE Publications Board or Board of Directors. The Guide will be updated at least annually, to record changes to IEEE or Society policy and/or procedures, affecting the Society''s publications.

Amendments in procedure may be recommended to the Society''s Publications Board by writing to the Society''s Publications Office at sp.pub.info@ieee.org (or by fax to 732/562-8905).

3.0. MEMBERSHIP STATUS, TERM OF SERVICE, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WORKLOAD.

3.1. Membership Status. An Associate Editor is required to be a Member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society. There is no such requirement for reviewers or authors, however.

3.2. Term. The formal term of appointment of an Associate Editor is up to three years. Associate Editors may serve more than one term, however such terms cannot be consecutive. The appointment is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the transactions or letters, who may seek advice from the cognizant IEEE Signal Processing Society Technical Committee(s). During the formal term, the Associate Editor functions as a member of the Editorial Board for the publication. However, although the formal (voting) term of an Associate Editor may end according to the calendar, the informal term continues until all manuscripts assigned to that Associate Editor have been peer reviewed and a final disposition has been made.

3.3. Duties and Responsibilities. The Associate 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 rules and procedures of both the Society and of the IEEE.

3.3.1. Identifying and Securing Reviewers. The most important role of the Associate Editor is the identification of appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, and for securing the agreement of the reviewers to conduct the review in the allotted time. This is central to the peer review process and triggers activities in the Publications Office and within the Manuscript Central (MC) system 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 is six weeks from acceptance of the review invitation within the MC system, that the reviewers agree to this schedule, and that accurate contact information (in particular the e-mail address and telephone number) for each reviewer is maintained in the MC reviewer database. When a reviewer is chosen, the associate editor must check any inaccuracies regarding the reviewer’s information in the MC database, or enter this information for reviewers not yet included in the MC database. Corrections to the reviewer’s information can only be made by the reviewer or the IEEE Signal Processing Society’s publications staff.

Reviewers are principally identified through peer contact, through the reviewer database in the MC system, or from references listed at the end of the manuscript. In rare circumstances, it may be necessary for the author to suggest possible expert reviewers, when a field is extremely narrow or new; in this case the AE may request that the author provide at least six (6) names of potential reviewers. This expedient should be used only in exceptional cases since using these reviewers may compromise the confidentiality of the review process. In such cases, it is preferable to use references in papers published by the suggested reviewers as an augmented pool from which to draw potential reviewers. Eventually, the Society''s Publications Office hopes to provide suggested reviewers drawn from individuals who have published in one of the Society''s transactions, and whose submission EDICS match the EDICS of the paper to be reviewed. Note that IEEE Xplore, and other databases can be used effectively to augment the reference list and database entries of the MC System.

Select reviewers across a range of ability. The more experienced, senior reviewer is balanced by eager, more junior reviewers.

Good reviewers are like diamonds--although they are sturdy, one must be careful to not overwear them. It is extremely important that the schedule for conducting the review be met; one way to assure that occurs, and the reviewers do not feel overwhelmed, is to request one, but certainly no more than two, reviews from a single individual within a time span of three months.

3.3.2. Numbers of Reviewers. Manuscripts submitted to the transactions of the IEEE Signal Processing Society normally receive three independent peer reviews. IEEE policy requires that no fewer than two peer reviews be conducted. Sometimes, in a very narrow field, due to workload or other factors, it is extremely difficult to secure a third reviewer. In that event, it is permissible to have two peer reviews plus the review of the Associate Editor. Three reviews should be the norm, however. Therefore, the associate editor needs to find at least three or four reviewers who accept to review the manuscript by the agreed deadline. The AE should invite, initially, at least four reviewers and not more than six. In the event that one review is provided by the Associate Editor, this review should have the explicit indication that it has been performed by the Associate Editor.

3.3.3. Communicating with Reviewers. Sometimes reviewers need help. The first line of communication, when problems arise concerning the review itself, is the Associate Editor. The Associate Editor must be available for such communication, probably by e-mail or phone, and responsive to such requests.

3.3.4. Communicating with Authors. Associate Editors will likely communicate with the author(s) more than once during the peer review process:

(a) The Associate Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on the remarks of the reviewers, and the Associate Editor’s own assessment of the manuscript. The Associate Editor’s must be well justified and explained in detail. In the case where revisions (minor or major) are requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained in the decision. The Associate Editor must convey promptly this decision to the author. In the course of the peer review, the Associate Editor will probably contact the author more than once, as the status of a manuscript changes.

(b) The author may contact the Associate Editor if instructions regarding required amendments to the manuscript are not clear.

3.3.5. Communicating with the Society''s Publications Office. As you will see in the Schedule of review activities, set out in detail in Section 5, an extremely important communications interface is the one between the Associate Editor and the staff of the IEEE Signal Processing Society''s Publications Office. As much as possible, this communication should be via e-mail, which provides fast movement of critical information. Copies of e-mails generated using the Manuscript Central database are automatically recorded in the database and, thus, assist in building a complete file on a manuscript. Yet, the Publications Office must be copied on all of your correspondence because it assists in building a complete file on a manuscript, obviating the retention of large amounts of paper by Associate Editors (the Publications Office retains a master file for six months following publication), and because it triggers "next steps" in the manuscript handling process.

IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, when an Associate Editor is contemplating being away from “home base” for two weeks or more, that the Publications Office be notified of the absence and be provided with at least one means of emergency contact (e-mail, phone, or fax).

Because an Associate Editor is advised prior to acceptance of the term 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 Associate Editor must establish a means for his/her work as an Associate Editor to continue efficiently, and the Publications Office must be provided, and updated, on full contact information as the Associate Editor moves from one location to another. In exceptional cases, the Associate Editor may request a suspension of the term of service, which will be determined by the Editor-in-Chief of the publication. Even in such cases, it is expected that the Associate Editor will follow to a final decision any pending manuscripts.

3.3.6. Blind Reviews. Reviews of manuscripts submitted to Society publications are "blind" reviews--the identity of each of the reviewers is never revealed to the author or others. The Associate Editor must assure that the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential.

3.4. Workload. As a norm, an Associate Editor shall not be assigned more than three manuscripts per month during his/her term of service. This does not mean that each Associate Editor WILL receive three manuscripts each month; but Associate Editors covering popular EDICS categories may be more active than those covering more esoteric EDICS.

Any difficulties with workload should be reported IMMEDIATELY to the Publications Office. Temporary relief can be administered to assure that workloads do not fall behind.

4.0. PUBLICATION OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL

4.1. Copyright. The Society publishes original material. Any author(s) submitting material to the Society''s publications is required to complete, and forward with the manuscript at submission, a Copyright Form confirming the originality of the manuscript and that it has not been submitted for consideration elsewhere.

Copyright of material appearing in IEEE publications is done for purposes of:

(1) enhancing the accessibility, distribution, and use of information;
(2) enabling the IEEE to control the use of its name;
(3) serving and protecting the interests of its authors and their employers.

Copyright policies are applied consistently throughout the Institute for all publications bearing the name and identity of the IEEE. Copyright is held by the Institute itself, and not by any of its entities. In return for the transfer of authors'' rights, the IEEE grants authors and their employers’ permission to make copies and otherwise reuse the material under terms established by the IEEE.

4.2. Sanctions in Cases of Plagiarism. To assure that the Institute''s and the Society''s rules regarding submission of original material are followed, the Society has developed sanctions to discourage the fraudulent submission under copyright protection of material that has already been submitted elsewhere, to insure that self-plagiarism is avoided, and to obviate instances of false accusations of plagiarism. The IEEE may choose to exert additional sanctions against author(s) for such infractions. The IEEE’s policies regarding plagiarism are spelled out in the IEEE Policy and Procedures manual available on the IEEE Web page (www.ieee.org).

Lately, instances of plagiarism have become more prevalent, and double submission of manuscripts also is occurring with frequency, despite the written oath of the author(s) that no other submission has been undertaken. When such instances arise, and it has been established that the author(s) acted knowingly, the Society will apply sanctions.

The identification of plagiarized material is comes to light because the discrete communities of signal processing disciplines are relatively small. It has occurred that the same individual may be called on by separate Associate Editors to review both manuscripts. It has also occurred that a selected reviewer may find his own work plagiarized in the manuscript he has been asked to review. In some cases, the misdeed may not be caught, and in one rare instance, the same manuscript was published in two different publications (although not of the same Society).

Sanctions regarding plagiarism will be applied by the IEEE Signal Processing Society upon discovery and documentation. IEEE may also choose to sanction the author(s) of such manuscripts. Further, such behavior not only constitutes a publishing misdeed, but may also be actionable by the IEEE under the rules of Member Conduct.

When it occurs that an entire manuscript or large parts (more than 25%) of a manuscript exactly mirrors a second manuscript by the same author, or by other authors, this must be reported immediately to the transactions Editor-in-Chief. Authors must cite previous work, including their own. Not citing one’s own work constitutes self-plagiarism and is subject to sanctions by the Society and by IEEE.

A third infraction, false accusation of plagiarism, also bears sanctions by IEEE. This type of behavior also may be actionable in a court of law.

The Signal Processing Society is prepared to exert the following sanctions regarding plagiarism:

The manuscript submitted to the Society’s transactions will be immediately rejected.
All authors [that is, any single, paired, or group of the authors to the manuscript will be prevented from submitting new manuscripts to any of the Society’s publications for a duration of one year from the formal date of notification to the authors.
Any other manuscripts under review by any of the authors of the offending manuscript will be rejected immediately, regardless of the stage of peer review, with the exception of submissions with other (hence, innocent) co-authors.

5.0. TIMELY PUBLICATION. As mentioned in the introduction above, the IEEE has established as a strategic goal the publication of manuscripts within six months of submission. The IEEE Technical Activities Board, in support of this goal, has established a guideline for publication in less than one year from date of submission.

At the time of publication of a manuscript, two dates are listed along with the manuscript: the formal date of submission of the manuscript (the date the manuscript is received by the Publications Office); and, the date of the Associate Editor’s letter or e-mail finally approving the manuscript for publication (the A status date only). These two dates are the landmarks for measuring the time from submission to publication.

5.1. Manuscript Submission

All of the transactions of the IEEE Signal Processing Society publish, in each issue, “Information for Authors” to guide the submission process.

5.1.1. New Submissions

All new submissions are entered electronically by the authors via the Manuscript Central portal. Staff and Associate Editors will access the manuscript electronically via this system. An e-mail is generated to notify all authors and the staff of the successful submission. At the same time, the author also has to fax a completed copyright form to the IEEE Signal Processing Society Publications Office at +1 732 562 8905. The form is available online.

5.1.2. Manuscript Submission and Tracking

Upon submission to the Manuscript Central system, the manuscript is issued a Manuscript Tracking Number, which is an entry into the database containing the author’s(s’) contact information, the electronic version of the manuscript, the review status, all communication to the authors and reviewers, and other pertinent information necessary to track the manuscript through peer review.

5.1.3. Manuscript Verification

The Publications Office staff prequalifies the submitted materials to determine that the manuscript meets submission requirements, and that all electronic files are legible and do not contain undefined/corrupted fonts.

One electronic copy, formatted double-spaced, single-column, and of no more than 30 pages, in pdf format;
One electronic copy formatted single-spaced, double-column to establish with the author, associate editor, and reviewers the estimated final publication length if the manuscript were to be published as received (not to overburden authors, only a rough formatting is necessary so long equations need not be fitted into the columns;
Names of ALL authors (including identification of the Corresponding Author and a BACKUP contact author, in the event the corresponding author cannot be reached), their complete contact information, and affiliation;
A recommended EDICS (Editorial Information Classification Scheme) identifier, which allows automated selection of the next available Associate Editor to manage the peer review of the manuscript;
An abstract of no more than 200 words for a regular paper, and no more than 50 words for a Correspondence, stating the scope of the paper and summarizing the author’s conclusions so that the abstract itself may be useful in information retrieval.
A properly executed “IEEE Copyright Transfer Export Control Compliance Form submitted by fax to +1 732 562 8905.

5.1.4. Manuscript Submission Length and Format

Authors are required to provide an electronic copy of their manuscript in double-spaced, single-column format which is no longer than 30 pages for a regular paper (12 pages in the case of a correspondence (See: Section 8)), along with one copy of the manuscript formatted single-spaced, double-column. The single-spaced, double-column copy will be used by the Publication Office as a measure of the estimated length of the paper if it were published on submission.

The Society’s Publications Board has established eight (8) pages as the appropriate length for the finalized transactions manuscript, six (6) pages for a correspondence, and four (4) pages for a letters manuscript. Although some papers will not be able to sufficiently reveal the findings of the author(s) in eight pages, those instances should be rare. Authors who exceed the guidelines are required to pay Mandatory Over length Page Charges established by the Society and IEEE. Mandatory Page Charges are considered to be the responsibility of the author and are not waived due to lack of publication grants or for other reasons. The Mandatory Over length Page Charges have been instituted to discourage publication beyond the length limits established by the Society, in order to help defray the significant per-page expense of publication, as well as to assure publication of a large number of quality manuscripts without defraying additional paper, handling, mailing, and other expense. Mandatory Page Charges may not be waived; however, special arrangements may be made through the Society’s Executive Director.

5.2. Peer Review Schedule

After the manuscript has been received and qualified as to appropriate submission criteria, an Associate Editor is selected by the Publications Office, by matching the EDICS and taking into account the workload of each Associate Editor to assure that, as a norm, no Associate Editor is assigned more than three manuscripts per month.

The transactions published by the IEEE Signal Processing Society will function according to the following standard timeline, and every effort will be made to keep all parties to the peer review to this schedule. The schedule below is geared towards the use of Manuscript Central (MD) Version 1.6. Hints on the use of this system appear in Section 10.

5.2.1. Step -1: Author’s Submission:

Author uploads to MC the required pdf versions of the manuscript, and by fax a copyright form. Upon successful submission, MC assigns a tracking number, acknowledges the author(s) by e-mail, and alerts the SPS Publications Office staff.

5.2.2. Step 0: Compliance Tests: 1-3 Business Days

The SPS Publications Staff checks the manuscript for submission criteria, format, length, and receipt of properly executed copyright form. If the manuscript is non-compliant in one or more criteria, the manuscript is immediately rejected and the authors are informed. Problems with pdf legibility (e.g., missing fonts) are resolved by interaction with the corresponding author(s).

5.2.3. Step 1: AE Assignment:

The SPS Publications Staff assigns the manuscript to the next available Associate Editor based on EDICS and AE workload. Upon selection of the AE, MC sends an e-mail message to the AE, notifying the AE that the manuscript is in his/her AE Center.

5.2.4. Step 2: Assignment of Reviewers: Two Weeks

The AE selects qualified reviewers. The AE can choose from existing entries in the MC reviewer database or has the option of entering new reviewers into the MC system. Note: searching by name in the MC database is more effective if only a few characters of the last name are entered. Reviewers with accents or other special characters in their names will not show up unless the name is precisely typed. Problems also occur in names of Asian reviewers where submission of the name may have been done last-name-first, or with names of reviewers from some Spanish-speaking countries where two family names are used. For this reason, the broadest possible search is recommended, and new entries should be created only if the reviewer does not already have an MC account. Reviewers do not like to maintain multiple accounts because it causes them to miss work assignments. The merging of two accounts, which must be done by Publications staff, is time consuming error prone, because of the size and complexity of the files. Thus, duplication of accounts is to be avoided. Further, AEs are required to check existing reviewer information and provide updates for inaccurate or outdated information to the staff, who are the only ones who can amend the reviewer file.
The AE has to click on the “invite” button for the reviewer to be invited. The system sends an e-mail message to the reviewer inviting him/her to review the paper. This e-mail includes the abstract of the paper. The AE has the option to edit the contents of the e-mail, as well as the e-mail address of the reviewer.
The reviewer has to respond to the AE, with a copy to the Publications staff, accepting or declining the invitation to review. This should be immediate (not to exceed 3 days).
For reviewers who do not respond in 3 days, the AE can click the “resend invitation” button and possibly edit the message before sending it. The reminder often has the desired effect of eliciting some response.
The AE has to click the button “agreed” or “decline” for each of the reviewers. This generates an e-mail message to the reviewer that can again be edited by the AE. After the “agreed” button has been clicked and the e-mail sent, the manuscript appears in the MC Reviewer Center of that Reviewer. For security reasons, the reviewer’s password is sent separately, upon request, to the e-mail address known to the system. NOTE: At this point, it is essential that the e-mail address of the reviewer be accurate. If the reply from the reviewer indicates new contact information, this has to be entered into the MC system by the SPS staff BEFORE the “agreed” button can be clicked.
The AE should guarantee that at least three reviewers accept the assignment to review the manuscript by the agreed time. The AE should invite initially at least four reviewers, and not more than six. Having more than three reviewers accept the reviewing assignment may greatly reduce the risk of delays later (most delays are caused by having an insufficient number of reviewers).

5.2.5 Step 3: Monitoring the Peer Review Process: Six Weeks

If the review is not returned in five weeks, MC sends a gentle reminder—this is a general, non-editable, e-mail message. It is a global reminder. A second reminder is sent on the deadline, and a final reminder 2 weeks after the deadline. The AE is copied on each of these e-mail messages and these messages are also stored in the database and accessible to the AE through the AE Center. The messages are sent in the name of the SPS Publications staff.
If a reviewer does not respond within 5 days after the second reminder, the AE should contact him/her directly. If the reviewer still does not provide the review promptly, it is essential that the AE look for a replacement reviewer and request an early review. Note that active involvement of the AE is critical as most significant delays occur at this point.
When a reviewer uploads the review, the reviewer needs to formally submit the review by clicking the “submit to the AE” button. Only then does the system accept the review and generate e-mail messages to the AE and the SPS Publications staff notifying them that the review is completed and posted to the system. There is a provision for file attachments, to enable detailed comments to the authors and (perhaps separately) to the AE. The reviewer needs to make sure that his/her identify is not revealed in the attachments to the authors.
When all the reviews of “agreed” reviewers have been posted, MC generates another message to the AE informing him/her that all reviews have been posted.

5.2.6. Step 4: AE Decision: One Week

At the point where at least two reviews are available, and the six-week deadline has passed, the AE should look at the reviews and possibly make a decision, even if all of the requested and agreed reviews are not in. If the AE is comfortable enough with the reviews already submitted, he/she can go forward with a decision based on the available reviews. If that is the case, the AE has to click the button “decline review” on all of the other agreed reviewers. This will generate a polite message to the remaining reviewers thanking them and informing them that the decision has been made. The AE should edit the e-mail to make it a “friendly” communication.
The AE, based on the reviews of the manuscript, determines whether or not, and under what circumstances, the manuscript can be published. An AE may decide (see also Section 8):

R – To reject the paper.
A – To accept the paper with no changes.
AQ – To accept the paper with minor but required changes that the AE can adjudicate directly. Manuscripts receiving and AQ status will not be returned to the reviewers.
RQ – To provisionally accept the paper with major, required revisions that will require a second full review cycle by the original and/or additional reviewers.
WD – Manuscript is considered withdrawn. This will affect manuscripts requiring amendment (AQ or RQ) that have not been returned to the SPS Publications office at the end of the six week amendment period, and the author(s) has not set a new return date, or has not responded to two reminders from the SPS Publications Office. This status may also be self-selected by the author at any time during the process.

The AE posts the decision through the MC system. This is a two-step process. First, select the decision and the system asks: “Are you sure.” Until the AE presses the “finalized decision” button, the decision is not yet submitted. At this point, a template e-mail to the authors is generated that should be edited by the AE, and the reviews are automatically appended to the end of the e-mail. NOTE: Any attached files for the author posted to the system by the reviewer are not attached to the e-mail for security reasons (virus prevention). The attachments are made available to the author in their Author Center.
The AE needs to confirm the contents of the attachment files, when reading the reviewers’ comments and before making the decision, assuring that the reviewers’ identities are not included in any attachments.
The AE decision should elaborate on the comments of the reviewers. The relevant points can be emphasized and irrelevant or inappropriate comments can be deemphasized. In the case of mandatory revisions, the AE has to specify precisely what revisions are required to make the paper acceptable.
If the AE’s decision is to “reject”, this decision is FINAL. If the decision is “accept,” the continue with Step 7, or for “accept with revisions,” see steps 5-6.
Note that it is appropriate, and it is encouraged, for the AE to send a thank-you note to a reviewer after he/she has sent in the review.
Copies of the AE’s decision letter and the reviews should be sent to all of the reviewers who have submitted a review of the manuscript. Until this is implemented through MC, the AE is expected to send a letter and reviews (e.g., by including the reviewers in a blind cc of the message to the author(s)). This is out of courtesy to the reviewers who bear the disposition of their review as well as having the benefit of the other blind reviews. Access to the reviews is also important when a reviewer is asked to review a revised submission, since it enables an understanding of the changes made by the author(s), along with the author’s(s’) response to the reviewers.

5.2.7. Step 5: Revision of Manuscript: Six Weeks
For an AQ or RQ manuscript decision:

The author is required to upload the revised version of the manuscript within six weeks. If the revision cannot be made within this period, the author has to contact the AE and agree upon an amended resubmission date.
The author also has to click on the reply to reviewers; comments, and enter a point-by-point summary of the changes he/she/they have made to the paper, as recommended by the AE and reviewers’ comments. These author comments are entered into text format with no equations. There is a provision for uploading a separate pdf file with a formatted reply that can include equations.
When the author submits the revised manuscript and clicks the “submit” button, MC generates an e-mail to the AE and the SPS Publications Office staff that notifies them that the revision has been submitted.

5.2.8 Step 6.1: Review of Revised AQ Manuscript: 10 Days

The Associate Editor reviews the amended AQ manuscript and makes the final decision (“accept” or “reject”) using the MC system. Because there are no reviews attached to this decision, the AE should include any final comments in his/her e-mail to the author.
The “accept” e-mail contains information on final manuscript submission. The SPS Publications Office staff is copied on the message.

5.2.9. Step 6.2: Review of Revised RQ Manuscript: 3 Weeks

The AE invites, once again, the reviewers that previously agreed to review the manuscript by clicking on the “agreed” button. This provides access to the reviewers to the revised manuscript and sends an e-mail message to notify the reviewers of its availability. If additional reviewers are needed, they can be invited following the procedures in Step 2.
Reviewers re-review the RQ manuscript, as amended, and provide comments as in Steps 2-3, above.
The Associate Editor makes a decision: A (accept), R (reject), or AQ (accept with minor mandatory changes). If the manuscript requires other than the most minor amendment, the manuscript must either be rejected by the Associate Editor or withdrawn by the author. No manuscript will receive more than two review cycles from the reviewers. As in Step 6.1, above, the AE will adjudicate any minor changes.
The “accept” e-mail contains information on final manuscript submission. The SPS Publications Office staff is copied on the message.

At this point, the review process is finalized and the AE has not further access to the manuscript in MC.

5.2.10. Step 7: Final Submission: 6 Weeks

The author submits the final production materials to the SPS Publications Office staff according to the guidelines included in the e-mail of the final decision. This does not involve the MC system. Upon receipt of all materials, the staff sends an acknowledgment.

The author has six weeks (42 days) to provide the finalized manuscript in proper format. Reminders are sent by the SPS Publications Office staff via e-mail and outside the MC system, which no longer has a role in the process. The SPS Publications Office is willing to build some flexibility into this step so that the author will have sufficient time, although not a protracted period, to prepare the finalized manuscript.

5.2.11. Step 8: Assembly of the Issue:

The SPS Publications Office staff assembles the table of contents and the finalized manuscripts for each issue of the transactions and letters. The staff then submits the issue to production 12 weeks prior to the cover date of the issue. Thus, in May, the staff are preparing the August issue for transmittal to production. The publication date of the finalized manuscript is affected by any existing backlog as well as delays caused by the authors themselves in submitting complete materials in appropriate formats.

5.2.12. Step 9: Production of the Issue: 12 Weeks

After an issue leaves the hands of the SPS Publications staff, it moves to the IEEE Transactions/Journals Department where the IEEE’s production staff takes over and prepares the issue through to mailing two weeks before the cover date of the issue.

NOTE: Following the above steps, a manuscript with a decision of “A” should reach the production step within approximately 17 weeks from the decision; a manuscript that is “AQ” should reach production in about 25 weeks from decision; and a manuscript that is “RQ” likely will require twice that time from that decision to production.

6.0. Publication Quality

6.1. Novelty and Appropriateness

The two most important scores a manuscript will receive are:

Novelty--Does the manuscript disclose new science, or contain fresh new approaches to established science?; and

Appropriateness--Is the manuscript a good "fit" for the publication, appealing to the publication''s "audience?" Is the manuscript "complete," not requiring propping up by other work to permit understanding of the disclosure.

These criteria must be affirmative for the manuscript to be accepted.

6.2. Disclosure

The transactions are published in english. The manner of disclosure of the author''s findings must be sufficiently literate in english to convey the author''s ideas. While current trends in academic writing show a preference for "active voice" (making the author an active player, rather than a passive observer, in the science), such considerations are not necessary to the selection of a manuscript for publication. However, manuscripts that are loosely written and repetitious, and that restate established scientific principles, instead of merely providing the appropriate reference to such science, will require reworking. It will be up to the reviewers and the Associate Editor to determine whether this is an easy fix (accomplished in a one more round of reviews), or a major undertaking (in which case the author probably should be advised to withdraw the manuscript and resubmit it after major revamping has occurred).

6.3. Appropriate Publication Length

A manuscript needs to be long enough to meet the burden of disclosure; but every effort must be exercised to eliminate "waste" of space. The Society has established ten (10) pages as the "standard" length of a final manuscript. It is recognized that some manuscripts may not be able to meet the burden of disclosure in only ten pages; however, the authors will be required to meet the expense of publishing every page over ten. Quite often, disclosure can occur quite nicely in less than ten pages, in which case the Associate Editor, with advice from the reviewers, should require the author to alter the manuscript to a suggested, appropriate length by providing clues for material to be edited out of the manuscript.

7.0. REVIEW DECISIONS--Further Explanation of the Decision Categories

7.1. Status of A

This manuscript requires no additional reviews, although there may be some small fixes--typos, etc.--which the Associate Editor indicates must be corrected. This manuscript will, essentially, be published "as is," with no additional action by the reviewers or Associate Editor.

7.2. Status of AQ

This manuscript, although meeting the criteria of novelty and appropriateness, requires a few fixes, usually of the technical variety (more than typos or grammatical corrections), which are considered to be quite minor, but which the Associate Editor has determined he/she should review one last time prior to approving the manuscript for publication. This decision cannot be used if the AE wishes to return the manuscript to any or all of the reviewers.

7.3. Status of RQ

This manuscript, although meeting the criteria of novelty and appropriateness, is seriously flawed as to disclosure (either technical, or literary, or both), and requires a major rework by the author. Manuscripts accorded a status of RQ will require a second round of reviews by the original reviewers (and possibly an additional reviewer).

No manuscript will be accorded the status of RQ more than once. That is, no manuscript will receive more than two full rounds of peer review. If the manuscript cannot be upgraded to a status of AQ by the Associate Editor at the end of the second round, it must be rejected.

7.4. Status of R

This manuscript has been rejected for one or more reasons. Manuscripts that fall into this category will fail to meet the criteria of novelty and appropriateness; may be poorly written or targeted for a different audience; or require such significant editing that the edit cannot reasonably occur in the six weeks the author is allotted prior to the next review round. The decision of R should be made clear in the AEs comments. Authors should not be encouraged to resubmit papers that are irredeemable because of lack of novelty, or for other reasons which, in the opinion of the AE, will lead to a manuscript of insufficient quality to be published by the Society.

7.5. Status of WD

An author may, at any point of the peer review, choose to withdraw a manuscript from consideration. Authors who do not upload their materials to Manuscript Central on schedule and do not respond to attempts to contact them regarding the material may have their manuscripts withdrawn as a matter of process. This status can only be entered by the SPS Publications Office staff.

8.0. "Correspondence"

8.1. Definition Correspondence items are short disclosures with a reduced scope or significance. There are two types of Correspondence that may be submitted to the transactions:

(A) Technical Correspondence: short technical manuscripts that describe a use for or magnify the meaning of a single technical point (submission format not to exceed 12 double-spaced pages of 11 point type, with margins of 1 inch minimum on all sides and including: title, names and contact information for authors, abstract, text, references, and an appropriate number of illustrations and/or tables); or

(B) Comment Correspondence: short notes that comment on a paper or correspondence previously published in the same transactions (submission length not to exceed three double-spaced pages of 11 point type, with margins of 1 inch minimum on all sides and including: title, names and contact information for all authors, abstract, text, and any appropriate references.)

Correspondence items are submitted in the same manner as regular manuscripts.

The Technical Correspondence has recently been reinstated by the SPS Publications Board (May 2002). It is explicitly mentioned that these short papers are regarded equally with regular papers and need to meet the same quality novelty and quality standards. The equal status of Technical Correspondence is underscored by the inclusion of author biographies . Further, AEs are not permitted to demand authors of regular manuscripts to review the manuscript to a correspondence. However, AEs are permitted to request that a paper be shortened, if the reviewers so indicate; but the manuscript will remain a regular paper.

The remainder of Section 9 is concerned only with Comment Correspondence.

8.2. Review Procedure for Comment Correspondence

Comment Correspondence, and any rebuttal thereto, must be focused on technical matters only, and may not contain any personalized or ad hominem remarks. The review of a Comment Correspondence is to be handled similarly to a Technical Correspondence, except as determined below. The Associate Editor should designate at least two reviewers and should be actively involved in the procedure to guarantee speed. Comment Correspondence should be published rapidly after the original paper, otherwise the comments are obsolete. This should be possible because of the short length of this type of submission.
The authors of the original paper being commented upon in the Comment Correspondence are not to be used as reviewers to obviate the parallel development by those authors of a competing paper, and to allow their subsequent response to the Comment Correspondence if that is deemed appropriate. Further, the AE should avoid using as reviewers all those who may have a conflict of interest with the Comments Correspondence, e.g., individuals who share the same employers as any/all of the authors of the original paper.
In the event a Comment Correspondence is accepted for publication, the AE sends the authors of the original paper a copy of the Correspondence, and invites them to rebut the Correspondence within a reasonably short period (approximately 3 weeks). Such rebuttal will be handled by the same AE and peer reviewed by the same reviewers as the original Comment Correspondence. However, the rebuttal is not under any circumstance to be shared with the authors of the Comment Correspondence, preventing the formation of an off-line correspondence loop.
Once both the Comment Correspondence and any reviewed and approved rebuttal are recommended for publication, the Associate Editor shall so notify the Editor-in-Chief of the transactions. The Editor-in-Chief will review both the Comment Correspondence and the rebuttal and make the final decision regarding publication of the Comment Correspondence or the Comment Correspondence and the rebuttal.

If the decision of the Editor-in-Chief is to publish both the Comment Correspondence and the rebuttal, the authors of the Comment Correspondence will be provided with a copy of the rebuttal. However, at this point, the author of the Comment Correspondence will be permitted no further comment (no rebuttal of the rebuttal).
The Comment Correspondence author, upon reviewing the rebuttal, may choose to request that his/her Comment Correspondence be withdrawn, in which event neither the original Comment Correspondence nor the rebuttal will be published in the transactions. If the decision of the original Comment Correspondence author is not to withdraw, then the Comment Correspondence and the rebuttal will appear together in a future issue of the transactions. NO FURTHER REBUTTALS will be published.

For certain Comment Correspondence papers (those that do not comment on a specific, earlier-published work), skip Steps 3 and 5.

9.0. AWARD-QUALITY MANUSCRIPTS

The Society presents a number of paper awards each year. To help identify candidates for these awards, the manuscript review form provides a space that permits each reviewer to indicate whether he/she believes the manuscript is of award quality. If the answer to the question is: "Yes," the reviewer is requested to provide specifics.

The Associate Editors are requested to nominate award quality papers.

Award nominations should be communicated to the Society’s Publications Office. The Publications Office will provide copies of the nominations to both the cognizant Technical Committee that has responsibility for evaluating the nomination, and to the Awards Board that has responsibility for the final decision.

10.0 HINTS FOR USING MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL VERSION 1.6

10.1 Reviewer’s Name Does Not Appear in the Manuscript Central Database

If you search for a name for a reviewer and you are sure that he/she is not already listed in the Manuscript Central database, you will need to enter him/her in. To do so:

(a) Go to the heading “Assign or Remove Reviewers (return to top);” to the right of this button is the “Add New Reviewer” prompt which you should click on.
(b) Type the appropriate information and DOUBLE CHECK that the e-mail address was correctly entered.
(c) Click on “Assign New Reviewer.” The person is now listed as a reviewer (with an automatic default permission as an author) and you can proceed to invite him/herto conduct a review. Remember, when searching for a reviewer’s name, only enter a few characters to permit the widest possible search and to obviate the creation of duplicate accounts. The wider search will reveal names with diacritical markings or names where the first and surname may be reversed, or other cultural practices.

10.2. Sending E-Mail Messages to Reviewers (Reminders and Other Correspondence)

If you need to send a message to a reviewer, first display the list of reviewers for the paper (go to the paper that is in your AE account and click on “View Details,” then scroll down to the title bar “Reviews (return to top)”. The names of the reviewers are underlined. By clicking on a name, an e-mail box will pop up and a message can be entered here and sent. For reminder messages, one can simply format a letter then cut and paste it into the message box.

10.3. Limits to the Numbers of Reviewers Under Title Bar – “Reviews (return to top)"

Only a maximum of six (6) reviewers can be shown under the title bar “Reviews (return to top).” If there are six names listed under that title bar and it is desired to add another reviewer, the AE will need first to delete one reviewer who is not going to be used by scrolling to the title bar: “Associate Editor Actions (return to top)” and clicking on “assign or Remove Reviewer,” and then clicking on the trash can icon and sending off the e-mail that pops up for the reviewer designated to be deleted. These steps can be repeated to delete any reviewer that is not going to be used until an “empty” slot opens up. Remember: Do not delete any reviewer that has agreed to review since that will deny him/her access to the paper to be reviewed and the review form.

10.4. Instructions to Enter a Review

The following instructions are for reviewers and are listed so that you can help the, if needed.

To enter a review, go to the Manuscript Central portal, and use the login information that was sent along with the acknowledgment e-mail.
Go into the “Reviewer Center.” Once the paper number is visible, click on the “Review” button. (If the paper number is not visible, send an e-mail to the IEEE Publications Office to reload the paper into the reviewer’s account.
Click on the “Score Manuscript” button.
Scroll down and make choices along the way.
In the section titled, “III. DETAILED COMMMENTS,” one can type or past in comments. This can only be ASCII text. More detailed reviews (including equations or other formatting) can be attached as pdf files, as follows:
Scroll down a little farther until two underlined phrases appear: “Attach Files for Associate Editor” and “Attach files for Author.” The only information that should be placed in the section: “Attach Files for Associate Editor” are CONFIDENTIAL comments that you DO NOT want the author to see. ALL other material, including (typed detailed comments, electronic copies of marked up manuscripts, etc.) should be placed under “Attach Files for Author.” The Associate Editor will be able to see information placed in both sections. But the author will not be able to see anything placed in the section “Attach Files for Associate Editor” when a decision is made and sent to him/her/them.
When the reviewer is finished entering the review, he/she clicks “Save Review.” After this, the reviewer has the option to print out a copy of the review.
Finally, the reviewer sends the review to the Associate Editor by clicking on the appropriately-named button.

10.5. To Make a Decision in Manuscript Central

Go to the “View details” portion of the paper.
Scroll down to the heading “associate Editor Actions (return to top).” Then click on the button, “Make a Decision.”
Scroll to the heading, “Post Decision (return to top)”. This will move the reviewer to another screen.
On the screen, a drop-down box with decision options (A, R, AQ, RQ, R) will appear to permit the AE to make the final choice.
The box below the decision box is for comments that the Associate Editor wants to send to the Editorial Center (i.e., annotations in the MC database on the paper which can be used to document the decision of the AE for the Editor-in-Chief).
If it is desired to make additional comments to the author, the AE can edit the e-mail message that is automatically generated when a decision is made. Typically, the AE is required to provide detail concerning the decision, as well as the revisions that the author needs to make before the manuscript could be accepted for publications.
Once the final e-mail message is sent to the author, all reviews and attachments will be sent to the author automatically as well. NOTE: Any attached files for the author posted on the system by the reviewer are not automatically attached to the decision e-mail for security reasons (virus prevention). The attachments are made available to the author in their Author Center.

10.6. Managing Attachments When Making a Decision

NOTE: This must be done PRIOR to the reviewer making a decision on the manuscript.

If a reviewer has attached files under the “Attached Files for Associate Editor” and it is something that needs to be viewed by the author when the decision is made, then the reviewer will need to move these files to “Attach Files for Author” BEFORE MAKING A DECISION. To move these attached files, follow the steps below. Remember to make sure that none of the attached files contains reviewer identification. Note that many file formats (other than plain ASCII text) may contain hidden information that may reveal the identity of the reviewer. It is advised to use plain text if at all possible. The reviewer should make every effort to prevent such information from being accidentally passed on to the author(s). One way in which to search for such hidden data is to bring up the attachment in plain text editor, such as EMACS or vi.

Click on the “Attached Files for Associate Editor” and open up the attachment and save it to your computer. Remember the location to which it is saved.
Next, go back to the reviewer’s name and click on “Attached Files for Author.”
Under “Choose a File to Upload” click on “Browse.”
Go to the file on your computer that you want and upload it into the “Attached Files for Author” section.

Repeat this as necessary for each reviewer.

10.7. When a Paper Was Given AQ Status (Why are there reviewers listed?)

Manuscript Central is not able to distinguish between AQ papers and RQ papers so that is why the names of reviewers are listed again. When the paper has been given an AQ status, nothing needs to be done with the reviews. Simply look the paper over to make sure that all of the reviewers comments have been addressed and then make a final decision. If it is decided to accept the paper but there are still very minor points that the author should address when assembling the final materials, you can mention these by editing the automatically generated e-mail.

10.8. When Assigned a Reviewed Manuscript (RQ Status)

Revised manuscripts have the same tracking number as the original manuscript, but with “.R1” attached to the number. These papers are listed in the AE account when you click on the section, “Revised Manuscripts: Manage Reviewers and Make Decisions.” All reviewers from the fist round review are automatically marked as “invited.” However, no correspondence has been sent to them. The reviewers must be marked as “agreed” to gain access to the revised manuscript.

To mark the reviewers from the first round of reviews and provide them access to the revision:

Scroll down to the heading, “Associate Editor Actions (return to top)” and click on the button “Assign or Remove Reviewer.” There will be a list of the original reviewers. The system only allows six (6) reviewers to be shown.
Click on the “agreed” button for those you wish to have review the paper in this second round of reviews. This will generate an invitation e-mail with details about the revision. Send this e-mail to the reviewer.
If you do not see the name of someone you believe should be on the reviewer list, it is possible that the list has more than six names. Click on the trash can icon next to the names of those you do not want to use. Each time you do this an e-mail will pop up. If you do not wish to send this e-mail, you can simply delete the e-mail address in the “To” line and then send off the message. This will allow the e-mail to be send but it will not bother the deleted reviewer with unnecessary e-mail. Keep repeating these steps until either the name of the reviewer or the word “empty” appears.
If you have reached “empty” and you do not see the name of the person you want to use, you will have to add him/her to the list of reviewers.

10.9. Reports Available to the Associate Editor

In the main menu of the Associate Editor Center is an item, “Reports.” Clicking on this bring up various lists: Manuscripts Accepted; Manuscripts Rejected; Manuscripts Received By Decision; Outstanding Revisions. This is actually the only way to access information on papers on which a decision has been made.

11.0. Summary

The IEEE Signal Processing Society has been on a quest, since 1996, to significantly reduce the time from manuscript submission to publication, realizing that speedy publication increases the perceived quality of a journal, and its desirability among top authors as a publication venue for their work. The Society''s goal is to publish at or near the TAB guidelines. To this end, significant reworking of the manuscript review process has been undertaken and the Society has added a staff component, with appropriate tools, that will manage the movement of manuscripts among all parties of the peer review process, and reduce to a minimum the paperwork burden on the Associate Editors. By the same token, the Society believes that the working relationship among the Associate Editors and the reviewers, and between the Associate Editors and the authors, should be preserved.

In the new review scenario employing Manuscript Central, the role of the Associate Editor is significantly strengthened. AEs are relied upon to solicit knowledgeable reviewers who will commit to a review cycle that is speedy, but of sufficient term. The Associate Editor, as “manager” of the peer review of each manuscript assigned to him/her is depended upon to be an active and motivating participant in the peer review process. While the role of the Signal Processing Society’s Publications Office staff removes the greatest portion of the drudgery from the process, the activities of the staff are purposely proscribed to enable the peer-to-peer interactions that are so important to the scientific publications process.

The publications supported and/or managed by the Signal Processing Society are well respected journals at the top of the fields they cover. The Society is on a constant question for excellence in all of its activities, and especially in its publications. The IEEE Signal Processing Society is proud and grateful to have you participate in that quest.