• Sunteți aici:  
  • Home
  • The Peer Review Process

The Peer Review Process

Detalii
JCSCS
Accesări: 1910
The peer-review process of the Journal of Computer Science and Control Systems (JCSCS) is double blinded: the authors do not have access to the information of who are the peer-reviewers and the reviewers do not know who are the authors of the submitted paper.

The Editor-in-Chief and / or an Executive Editor decide if each paper corresponds to the topics of the journal and if it fulfills the quality requirements in order to follow the review process. The rejected papers will be not further processed.

The designated Executive Editor supervises the peer-review process for the papers accepted for this step of review. For each accepted paper the Executive Editor will contact an Associate Editor among the Associate Editors of the JCSCS, corresponding to the topics of the paper. The designed Associate Editor can reject the submitted paper, delivering to the Executive Editor a report with the reasons of the rejection. The rejected papers will be not further processed.

The designed Associate Editor assigns the paper for peer-review to (or recommend to the Executive Editor) at least two independent reviewers (three reviewers, recommended), among the reviewers of JCSCS database or other well-known researchers in the field of the accepted paper. The reviewers submit their reports to the Associate Editor with one of the following actions:
1. Reject: Content inappropriate to the journal or has little merit.
2. Probable Reject: Basic flaws in content or presentation or very poorly written.
3. Marginal Tend to Reject: Not as badly flawed; major effort necessary to make acceptable but content well-covered in literature already.
4. Marginal Tend to Accept: Content has merit, but accuracy, clarity, completeness, and/or writing should and could be improved in time.
5. Clear Accept: Content, presentation, and writing meet professional norms; improvements may be advisable, but acceptable as it is.
6. Must Accept: Candidate for outstanding paper; suggested improvements still appropriate.

After the submission of the reports from all the reviewers, the Associate Editor can take one of the following decisions:
a. Publish without changes (action 6);
b. Publish after minor changes (action 5 and / or 4);
c. Review again after major changes (action 3 and / or 2);
d. Reject (action 1).

Depending on her/his decision, the Executive Editor recommends papers for acceptance or rejection to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision concerning the acceptance for publication.