FAQ s for Editors. In case (1) build a case. This paper may be a candidate for outright rejection.

Transcription

1 FAQ s for Editors From 10 August 2014 Q: What is the ScholarOne Manuscripts website for the editor portal? A: Q: What does "Plagiarism Percent Match Threshold Exceeded" mean? A: The threshold is set at 30% content that duplicates a previous publication, excluding the reference list. This paper is a candidate for special scrutiny by you, the editor, for re use of material (see next question). Q: What should I do with a paper that has been flagged for plagiarism? A: There are several things to look for. (1) outright plagiarism, in which material has been copied from another source without proper attribution, especially when the other source is authored by another person or persons; (2) duplication of work from a previous paper written by the same authors, which is rather common because authors use a previous paper as the template for a new paper; (3) a "patchwork" of material from several different papers, where more than one work will have a substantial score > 10%; (4) copying the "project language", where certain official statements have been used to describe a large system or specification. There are other cases. In all of the above, it is important to check if the work captured by CrossCheck and Ithenticate is also listed in the body of references. This can go a long way toward satisfying "proper attribution". In case (1) build a case. This paper may be a candidate for outright rejection. In case (2) look at the figures. Are they being re used too? You might have to obtain copies of the duplicate work to check. Then: Is the author presenting original material in the new manuscript? Is it possible for the author to more succinctly state or refer to the previous work? Can the author be challenged to explain what is new and why the old material needs to appear? These questions, and others, should help you decide whether the paper merits review or requires re submission. The may be hope for these papers with the right communication to the authors. In case (3) again, look at the figures. Often, these papers do not present an original story of any kind, and may be attempting to review the status of something. Is the manuscript a review? Did the program committee solicit a review presentation? Has the author given appropriate attribution to previous work? Usually, we do not publish reviews, but there are many examples where a summary of a project or program is appropriate. In case (4) look at the references. If there are documents in the list that explain the "official" way of stating things, then the re use can be permitted. Make sure that attribution is there, and consider whether the excerpt should be typeset as a quotation. This might also apply to figures, especially when the manuscript attends to a certain engineering aspect of a large project. Q: When should I start processing the suitability check lists? A: After Annett or I say "GO", because there will be a time period where we re assign editors to balance

2 the workload based on the manuscripts that have appeared, and after other checks have been completed. I anticipate this to be sometime during the week after ASC. Q: What about LaTeX manuscripts? A: LaTeX manuscripts might not look like the camera ready template. There is an appropriate document class and there are document options to make the format come out the right way. Here, some assistance from IEEE Pubs can identify the proper settings to make things come out correctly. I do not want the peer review to be delayed over simple document settings when the content is there. So, please be more lenient with LaTeX submissions that do not look exactly like the template (see below). Q: How close does a manuscript have to be to the template? A: The reason we have a template is to allow author produced final files to appear on IEEEXplore soon after the manuscript is accepted. The template also lets the editor get a good idea about page length, and it conforms to our present contract with IEEE Publications for "medium" typesetting assistance. At this "medium" level, positioning of figures and a touch up of format is provided, but whole scale typesetting is not provided. So, IEEE Pubs would have to bounce back final files that are too far from the final format later. ============ From ASC2012, MT 23, and ASEMD lessons learned USING CROSS CHECK AND ITHENTICATE The ithenticate check displays an error. What to do? Any LaTex files or files with punctuation or special characters are not automatically checked. These will need to be run manually by uploading a pdf file or corrected file name version. Please contact Annett D Antonio (pubs@centennialconferences.com) to help with this process. Bibliography not excluded by default for ithenticate. If any of your manuscripts have a high score, please go back to the ithenticate section, click on View the Originality Report, and select Exclude Bibliography (see near the top of the report). In many cases, this can make quite a difference to the score. MANUSCRIPT SUITABILITY CHECK How do I notify an author that their manuscript is not suitable? 1 Complete the TE Checklist 2 set the required number of reviews to 0; this will immediately trigger an editorial decision 3 choose Reject not suitable from the decision list*; this will trigger the Reject not suitable as well as an invitation to re-submit the manuscript within a 10-day deadline You should include comments about the material that is not suitable. *A Reject decision at step 3 above will trigger a hard Reject decision with no opportunity for resubmission. Per IEEE policy, a hard reject at this stage should only be considered for very clear cases. For most cases, the preferred action is to communicate to the author the shortcomings of the manuscript via the Reject not suitable decision. What is the difference between the "soft" reject - not suitable and the "hard" reject? "Not suitable" permits the author to upload a new version of the manuscript within 10 days. The author can only do this during the submission phase; re-submissions do not receive a suitability check. "Hard" reject ends the editorial process. All "hard" rejects will be confirmed by the Lead Editor and the EIC. IEEE Editing Service for Authors Please remind authors where the English is poor quality but the technical content is acceptable to take advantage of IEEE s professional editing service at or for other services.

3 When can the abbreviation "et al." be used in IEEE Transactions articles? According to the IEEE style manual, the text et al. may be used when there are 3 or more authors. We prefer, however, that all authors be listed when there is available space in the reference list (not body text) to acknowledge the contribution of third and higher authors to published work. THE ART OF REVIEWER SEARCHING AND SELECTING In S1M, there are several panes (enumerated below) that appear under "take action" when you are selecting, inviting, or assigning (more) reviewers. Each one has its use, although some features are inactive. Here is a guide. 1. Quick Search --- This one is simple, just a name search. However, remember that S1M accepts the wildcard character "*" which substitutes for any string of characters. So, C*ey will bring up Cooley as well as Coffey, Cyberey, and the first name Corey. This is especially useful for skipping over phonetic spellings. 2. Related Manuscripts Search --- This tool is most powerful when used to search manuscript title words. Again, judicious use of the wildcard is helpful, but be aware of searches that pull too many entries. The result of this search will produce a list of the co-authors of the manuscripts that match the search term. The related manuscripts search is also useful for uncovering conflicts of interest. In this case, entering terms for authors or co-authors in one of the name fields will produce a list of names who might be closely connected with the authors. Finally, by entering a name into the reviewer field, the related manuscripts search can identify lists of manuscripts reviewed by a person, which helps gauge the breadth of subject area of the reviewer. 3. Auto-Suggest --- If keywords are selected at manuscript submission time, then the auto-suggest tool returns a list of names of reviewers who have the same keywords as the manuscript keywords. 4. Advanced Search --- This is the most useful tool. Keywords can be selected here using the Pick button. If you enter a partial string with a wildcard, e.g. " sup* ", then the pick list will be narrowed to those items that match the string. The list of names returned will be filtered by the Roles: and Where to Search: fields. Usually, selecting ALL for Roles is most useful. To narrow Where to Search, note that shift-click will select a range of items, and ctrl-click will select certain multiple items from the list. You can specify sort order as you choose --- reverse sort is recommended for half of searches, since otherwise reviewers whose names appear in the front of the alphabet tend to have the higher review load. Please note the Exclude Institution entry. This is very useful for removing authors with potential conflicts of interest from coming up in the results list. Other helpful tools: Use the "Set My Search Preferences" button on the right menu to expand the number of results per page. This is also very useful for hiding the Auto-Suggest pane and any other panes. I can't find a reviewer name that I want. What do I do? First, did you try wildcards? Use the quick search tool, and enter a wildcard version of the reviewer, e.g. "Coo*" to identify Cooley, Coombs, or Cooper. Did you try wildcards in other search forms? Please notice the different databases that can be searched for authors - the "all" option is useful. Finally, if all else fails, create a new reviewer account. This tool appears at the right, under the number of reviews due. Warning --- please exhaust all tries before creating a new reviewer, and please make sure all information is accurate. GENERATED BY SCHOLARONE MANUSCRIPTS (S1M formerly Manuscript Central) Why are there so many "assign reviewer" reminders? S1M does not consider the assign reviewer task as being complete until the required number of reviewers (often 2) have committed to an assignment, most often by clicking on the accept link in their invitation . While S1M gives an invited reviewer 14 days to respond, with reminders at 5 and at 10 days, editors must monitor the process for lack of response to an invitation. In the meantime, the TE task keeps ticking in time. For this reason, it may be prudent to contact the invited reviewer outside of the MC system, as well as invite extra reviewers. Un-doing a reviewer assignment, changing the number of required reviewers, or other actions that make

4 the number of assigned reviewers different from the number required, may trigger overdue or other reminders. This occurs because the reference date used internally by S1M is the date the manuscript originally started the assign reviewer task. Why aren't my invitations sent from S1M being received by the reviewers? A1: Best, but not complete answer --- We pulled together previous reviewer databases for the reviewer search tools, and then we attempted to merge records based on the most recent activity. In some cases, unfortunately, this might have assigned an inactive to the contact. Since you can edit the outgoing invitation, please check the in the TO: field. To improve the chance of success, please insert an from your regular address book, and please cc: yourself. Use web-based search engines and directory services to locate the most recent contact information, and paste that into the TO: field. Contact the ASC editorial office if you spot out-of-date or duplicate account information. A2: Spam filters might catch the fact that the sending address is different than the FROM: address. They might re-direct the invitation to a junk folder. This is an unavoidable obstacle with the MC system --- it is the recipient s post office that controls the spam filters, and it is practically not possible to ask every receiving institution to allow on behalf of from S1M through their filters. Again, please use your regular connections, too. How do I remind invited reviewers to respond to their invitation? The easiest way is to click on the reviewer's name in the take action -> manuscript information screen, under "assign reviewers" task. This will open an window with the reviewer and the manuscript, into which you can paste a personal message. There is a reminder set up in the system. Please remind your reviewers to reply to their invitations. Are all the reminders that I am getting a signal that S1M did not even send out the invitations to reviewers? A1: It could be. A flaw of S1M is that it is difficult for you to know whether the sent out by the system actually arrived. The system is configured to allow bounce-backs to come to the editor s account, provided spam filters allow it to do so. I recommend a follow-up from your regular account, a phone call, or some other communication route where you can have better assurance that your invitation went through. A2: Also - the reminders to you can indicate that the invited reviewer is simply not responding to the invitation or the reminder s they get. (Different reminders go to the invited reviewers.) A follow-up phone call or personal might be helpful. Why do the reminders for assigning reviewers seem to ignore my progress on this task? S1M can start multiple clocks ticking for a manuscript in the reviewer selection, invitation, and assignment queues. The assignment clock does not reset once it is started, even if invited reviewers decline, respond as unavailable, or do not respond at all. This means that actions to replace a declined review request start well into the assignment task period. Thus, a response to a replacement review request can return past the due date for the assignment task. "Long overdue" and "intervention" s will be triggered under these circumstances. The schedule for reminders is set up based on triggering events such as a number of days past due. The triggers do not take into account other aspects, such as recent activity (or lack thereof) by an author, editor, or reviewer. The text used in templates seeks a balance between firmness and politeness, and other editor s feedback has helped improve the tone of these messages. While it is possible for editors to modify deadlines for authors and reviewers (see further below, Deadline Extensions), it is not possible for the EIC to modify the deadline for technical editors. Short deadlines apply to the Select Reviewers and Invite Reviewers tasks. A longer deadline applies to the Assign Reviewers task to accommodate the time period for a response to the review invitation. As soon as the first invitation is sent, the Assign Reviewers due date is set, and this due date will remain in place even if subsequent new invitations are sent at a later time. When a reviewer declines an invitation, the manuscript will again appear in either the Select Reviewers queue (if the minimum number of reviewers needed was selected) or the Invite Reviewers queue (if extra reviewers were selected and only some of them were invited). This will reset the deadlines for Select Reviewers or Invite Reviewers. However NO CHANGE to the Assign Reviewers task deadline will occur. If there are multiple declinations, it is possible that "selection due" s will cross with "assignment severely overdue" s. Reviewers that respond with "unavailable" will have the same effect as those that respond with "decline", with the additional possibility that ALL OTHER invitations to the same reviewer will become declined, too.

5 To help identify reviewers who do not respond at all, technical editors receive a cc: of the second reminder notice sent to invited reviewers. This should be a clue that the reviewer might not respond to the invitation by the time Assign Reviewers becomes due. Also, technical editors will receive a cc: of the confirmation e- mails to "decline" or "unavailable" responses to alert the editor that a reviewer needs replacement. Good strategies to accommodate the Assign Reviewer deadline are: a) Select several reviewers, bearing in mind that 1/3 of invitations will be declined b) Invite more reviewers than the minimum number needed c) Promptly address decline or unavailable responses OVERDUE, INTERVENTION, and ABANDONED REMINDERS What about "overdue", long overdue, and "intervention" reminders? Reminders with overdue in the subject field are sent out when tasks are somewhat past their due date. Usually this will be 7 days overdue. A copy of the reminder will be sent to an authority, e.g. the TE when the author is overdue, just to alert that a task is falling behind. "Long overdue" in the subject field indicates the LAST scheduled reminder. This is your notice that things are really falling behind, to the point where the task may place the editorial process for the manuscript at risk of missing the Special Issue deadline. Multiple levels of authority are copied on this message. Your EIC will know if an author or reviewer task has reached the long overdue status. Intervention is actually sent to the higher levels of editorial management in most instances, with copy to the TE. This message requests the editor to step in and act immediately. You should not allow a task to reach this stage if you can help it. The intention of the "overdue" and long overdue message system is to bring in the back-up level of the editors to assist with whatever problems might be causing delays. This includes busy schedules it is fully understood that this is volunteer work and things can be put off by higher priorities, which is why another level stands ready to act if needed. The same applies to authors and reviewers there are ample methods to extend deadlines, within reason, to accommodate various circumstances. Communication is the key to avoiding such long delays. A second important intention of overdue and long overdue messages is to capture some tasks that, for various reasons, fall into a black hole. Obsolete addresses, spam filters, address changes, and other obstacles can break the communication chain needed by the editorial process. Unfortunately, the reminder tools cannot check for previous communications before issuing messages; they are only triggered by date past the due date. Your understanding is requested when reading the tone of these messages in contexts other than what is generally intended. What are "abandoned" s? S1M uses the setting "abandoned" to mean "when S1M releases a role from responsibility for a duty". So, for example, when a decision is made by the TE but a review is still pending, the abandoned message template goes out to the pending review to indicate that it is no longer required. REVIEWER & DECISION COMMENTS If a reviewer attaches a file that is intended for both the author and the editor, how do I forward that file to the author when the decision letter is produced? Note: Files attached to reviews are NOT automatically attached to the decision letter. When you create the draft , scroll down to the bottom. You have two steps to complete. (1) There is a pull-down menu "Select a manuscript file to attach. Any attachments forwarded by reviewers will appear in this list, along with the manuscript files. Select the file, and note that it is not yet attached to the message. (2) Click on the attach icon. This will complete the attachment process. Verify that the file name now appears in the "Files attached" list. Also, please note that you can upload your own comment file this way. Any reviewer attachments, which are converted by the system to a PDF proof, will have the properties stripped out. Please see the screenshot below. As long as the reviewer's attached file contains a systemgenerated proof (the blue PDF), then the properties will be stripped out.

6 In rare cases, the editor might have caused to download a reviewer's attachment directly to their computer, and then re-upload it to the decision letter. Since this version is not converted by the S1M system, it could potentially include the reviewer's name or other identifying information in the document properties. The editors should only attach a system-generated proof to the decision letter. In such rare cases, it would be better to upload a supplementary file with assistance of an administrator, convert it using the MC system, and validate the converted file before attaching to author correspondence. However, this does not prevent issues in the review itself, i.e., the comments files or comments box. Editors should check the reviewer's comments, in case reviewers inadvertently entered their name or initials. How do I incorporate comments intended for the author in the decision letter? The contents of the comments to author box on the score sheet are automatically copied. You can edit these comments when the decision is created by the create draft button. As EIC, how do I include comments from a technical editor in the notification to author if I think the author should see them? (NOTE: ALL REJECT DECISIONS MUST HAVE A COMMENT FROM AN EDITOR TO EXPLAIN THE DECISION.) There typically seems to be some confusion about the function of the various boxes used for typing comments. The box labeled "decision comments" are confidential between editors (as the text above the box explains) and will not be incorporated in the decision . Yet, many technical editors put comments about the manuscript here. Comments to the author must be placed in the draft at the appropriate location (usually under "Technical Editor comments to author") or attached as a file. Notice that this text can be edited freely, so for instance the word "Technical" can be removed to reflect other editors' comments. None of the contents of text boxes in Manuscript Central actually get copied to this notice. The LE and EIC have the ability to edit decision letters. When appropriate, they can copy comments about the manuscript into the decision letter. The for reject decisions is sent to the EIC for forwarding later to the author. This gives the EIC the ability to fully review all information conveyed to the author before sending. Why do comments entered in the "comments to technical editor" section disappear when the LE sends back a decision to a technical editor? (Related) Why do comments entered in the "comments to EIC" section disappear when a technical editor makes a decision, which the LE then sends back? This happens only when a subsequent action is to change the number of required reviews. A common reason for the EIC to send back a decision to a TE is to obtain an additional review. This might occur, for instance, when reviewers have different recommendations. When the number of reviews is changed, the TE decision becomes abandoned, and a new review process starts at the select, invite, assign stage. Manuscript Central clears out comments made in the decision process at the time starting the new review process. To preserve comments between editors, e.g. if recommendations for additional reviewers are made, please copy the text into the Notes: section. This can be located at the bottom of the Manuscript Information tab. DEADLINE EXTENSIONS How do I grant a reviewer more time to complete the review? This usually applies to manuscripts in the "awaiting reviewer scores" queue.

7 Click "take action". The "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" pane should become active. Near the top of the pane should be the Reviewer List. Click on the magnifying glass icon next to the reviewer name. This brings up an information window. Click on the "Account Information" tab. Scroll down to "Grant an Extension" and enter a new date. This extension applies only to the current manuscript. How do I grant an author more time to submit a revision? A1: This usually applies to manuscripts in the "Manuscripts Awaiting Revision" queue. If the manuscript has not passed the due date, you can: Click "take action". The "Manuscript Information" pane should become active. Under "Peer Review Milestones" near the top of the pane, a revision decision should be indicated near the bottom of that section, with a due date. You can enter a new date in the text box, or click on the calendar tool, to establish a new due date. Click "save" A2: Manuscripts that have PASSED THE DUE DATE FOR REVISION will not appear in the "awaiting revision" queue. Instead, SEARCH for the manuscript ID using the tools on the dashboard. Once the manuscript has been located, proceed according to A1 above. Why do manuscripts disappear from my awaiting revision queue? See the question above. Please note: an template has been set up when the option to revise expires, with CC: going to the TE. This should alert you that a manuscript is about to disappear from your awaiting revision queue. How can an editor get more time for an editorial task? Contact the special issue Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor (asc@centennialconferences.com). AUTHOR REVISIONS / COVER LETTERS For revisions, when an author uploads a file via the cover letter upload option (which could include responses to the reviewer s comments), and a reviewer is invited/assigned to review the revision, the uploaded author file is not automatically sent to the reviewer. The uploaded cover letter is intended for the editor or the EIC only. What the TE can do is to save that cover letter file, and then upload it to the correct author's response section so that reviewers could see it. COPYRIGHT FORMS One of my authors did not submit a copyright form. What should I advise? Authors will be able to submit the electronic copyright form after final file submission via their corresponding author account or they may download the form at rights/copyrightmain.html. The form should be sent to the editorial office, attention Annett D Antonio, by at asc@centennialconferences.com. Please advise the author to reference his/her tracking ID at all times. (The tracking ID is often the same as the program number with ASC2014- prepended. This will not be true of resubmissions after reject-not suitable decisions.) MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL TEMPLATES What do I do if I think an sent from a template is poorly formed or contains the wrong information? Contact the special issue Editor-in-Chief and Annett D Antonio at the editorial office (asc@centennialconferences.com).