ۿ۴ý

Information for Editors

Advice for Associate Editors

Thank you for agreeing to serve as an Associate Editor for theۿ۴ý Transactions on Information Theory. While selection as Associate Editor may be seen as a recognition of the high esteem in which you are held by your peers, please note that the position is not merely honorary—there is a lot of work to be done! Our readers are counting upon you to exercise your best judgement, based on your extensive technical expertise, to assist authors in improving the quality of their submitted papers so that the high standard expected of papers published in theTransactionsis reached. Your job is a difficult one: you will coordinate the review process for a large number of papers, and for each paper you will be the main point-of-contact for authors, reviewers, the Area Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The position, though voluntary, is time-consuming: be prepared to spend many hours reading papers, reading emails, chasing reviewers, and writing careful assessments and responses. You can expect to spend about 6 to 8 hours per week on Associate Editorial tasks, though naturally the load will be time-varying, and you will become more efficient as you gain experience.

Generalities

In coordinating the review process for each paper assigned to you by an Area Editor, your main loyalty must be to thereaderof theTransactions. As noted in the, the suitability of a paper for publication must be assessed based on three criteria (two of them objective and one subjective), which, loosely speaking, can be phrased as follows: is the papernew?;correct?;interesting?

Novelty and correctness are obvious attributes that any newly published paper must possess. Novelty is a measure of theresultsԻideasof the paper: a paper can be considered novel if it contains a new result (even if the result flows from the application of well-known techniques) or if it contains a new idea (even if the idea merely reveals a simpler way to understand an old result).

The third question—is the paper interesting?—requires judgement and familiarity with the community served by theTransactions. The question might also be phrased as “does it matter?” or “will it make a difference?” or “is it useful?” Of course this is a subjective criterion (after all, what is interesting to one person may not be interesting to another); what is intended by this question is whether or not the paper, if published, will serve the needs of the readership of theTransactions. The information for authors states that

“novelty alone does not assure publication; the significance of a paper and its usefulness to thisTransactions' readership will also be assessed.”

For example, a paper with new and correct results that are, however, purely of mathematical interest, without any engineering provenance or significance, may be deemed outside the scope of thisTransactions, and the authors re-directed to a suitable Mathematics journal. On the other hand, a paper that advances a well-recognized mathematical problem initially motivated by Information Theory and studied by members of our community, would certainly be deemed interesting.

When a paper does satisfy the three central criteria, a final measure that must be assessed is that oflength: is the length of the paper commensurate with the contribution that it makes? TheTransactionsimposes no page limits, and papers can range in length from 2 or 3 pages to more than 20. Short well-focused papersthat make an important point briefly are certainly acceptable, and should not be lengthened unnecessarily. Authors should be discouraged from padding their papers by adding superfluous examples or excessively many simulation plots.

As an Associate Editor, you also have specific responsibilities towards theauthors. You must strive to:

  • provide unbiased feedback in a timely manner, giving comments and making decisions that are supported by a suitable rationale;
  • respond promptly and politely to author queries;
  • avoid personal comments or criticism;
  • maintain confidentiality of the content of the paper, and avoid using confidential information for your own purposes or for the advantage of others.

While fairness is of paramount concern in dealing with authors, please do note the emphasis on timeliness and civility: a lack of responsiveness, or providing responses which are curt or perfunctory, invariably lead to author complaints to the EiC, who must then intervene. The cumulative load of such interventions detracts unnecessarily from useful EiC functions.

In interacting withreviewers, you have a duty to:

  • preserve the anonymity of the reviewers;
  • preserve the integrity of the review process by communicating the reviewers' comments to the authors without editing them;
  • refrain from always asking a particular reviewer to provide comments on papers from a particular group of authors.

Associate Editors also have specific responsibilities towards theEditor-in-Chiefand AreaEditors. AEs must:

  • alert the Area Editor and EiC promptly about possible conflicts of interest;
  • notify the Area Editor and EiC promptly if circumstances arise that make it impossible to complete the handling of the paper in a timely manner;
  • inform the Area Editor and EiC of any festering disagreement with authors;
  • notify the Area Editor and EiC promptly with any ethical concerns.

Specifics

As of 2021, theۿ۴ý Transactions on Information Theoryreceives approximately 100 submissions per month. Submissions occur online via the(S1M) web site. A small number of submissions are out-of-scope, and will be rejected immediately by the Area Editor (RE). Taking into account the subject of the paper and the current load of each AE, the remaining papers are assigned by the RE to an Associate Editor for handling. Each AE will end up being assigned about 2 to 3 papers per month, though these numbers may fluctuate from month to month and may be larger near the beginning of your term. You may occasionally be assigned a paper that is not directly within your main area of expertise, but usually not so far away that you are not able to identify appropriate referees for the paper. If it happens that you are assigned a paper that you cannot or wish not to handle, please alert the REimmediately so that the paper can be re-assigned promptly.

The Paper is Assigned

You will be notified by an email from the Area Editor, sent via S1M, whenever a paper is assigned to you. Each paper is assigned a unique identifier of the form IT-YY-NNNN[.Rr], where YY identifies the year of submission, NNNN is a number that increments by one for each manuscript received, and [.Rr] is a suffix, not present on the original submission, that identifies therevisionnumber, i.e., .R1 for the firstrevision, .R2 for the secondrevision, and so on. Normallyallsteps of the paper-handling process, including all official correspondence with the authors and with reviewers, should be conducted via S1M. Each action (assignment to an AE, inviting a reviewer, sending an email, changing the status of a paper) is carefully recorded by S1M in the audit trail associated with the paper. This audit trail is accessible, for the papers assigned to you, through your S1M Associate Editor Center. Please note that email communications made outside of the S1M system can always be added to the official record by “cutting-and-pasting”; if needed, the Transactions Administrative Assistant can assist with this.

Although the paper-assignment letters are derived from a standard template (and all look much the same) please read each one carefully, as often the RE will have included possible comments on the quality or contribution the paper, or will have included suggestions for possible reviewers. (Should you accidentally delete the email, don't worry: you can always recover it from the audit trail.)

First Reading

When a paper is assigned, after carefully noting any comments from the Area Editor in the assignment letter, your first step is to read through the paper.In this initial scan of the paper, you should not attempt to read the paper carefully for correctness, but just read it to get a sense of the scope of the results. You should examine the list of references to see which previous papers are being cited. The journals and conferences cited serve as an indicator of the readership that the paper addresses and as a measure of the degree to which the paper fits theTransactions(or, possibly, a different journal). You should also check to see whether the authors have included a cover letter or any other supplementary material, and read through this material, if present. Although cover letters are not always present, it is expected that authors will provide such a letter in case the paper is arevisionof a previous submission. Indeed, inclusion of such a letter ismandatoryif the paper is aresubmissionof one previously rejected by theTransactions. Such a letter should indicate, in detail, the manner ofrevision, or, in the latter case, how the issues that led to the rejection of the previous manuscript have been addressed. In the case ofresubmission, failure to include such a letter can be the sole reason for immediate rejection, and in some circumstances might even lead to a publication ban.

After your initial reading of the paper, you may decide to take one of three actions:

  • Inform the Area Editor that you are unable to handle the paper because of a conflict of interest, or because the paper is too far outside the domain of your expertise.
  • Initiate an“immediaterejection (IR)”, because the paper clearly does not meet the high standards of theTransactions(for example, it could be poorly written, out-of-scope, unlikely to interest theTransactions' readership, or present a trivial or well-known result). More on immediate rejections.
  • Send the paper out for review. This is the normal course of action.

Immediate Rejections

Thestates, in Section 8.8.2.A.3, that an article may be “prescreened,” i.e., immediately rejected, when the authors have (a) not followed ۿ۴ý guidelines for style, (b) have not adhered to ۿ۴ý policies, (c) have submitted an incomprehensible article, (d) have submitted an article whose subject and contents do not meet the scope of the journal, or (e) have submitted an article that does not meet the minimum criterion for technical substance established for the periodical. Rejection under criterion (e) requires concurrence of the EiC and at least two other members of the editorial board. Thus, under these rules, an immediate rejection under criterion (e) can occur with the concurrence of three individuals: for theIT Transactions, these could be: (i) two Area Editors and the EiC,(ii) the Area Editor, and the AE handling the paper (if one has been assigned), and the EiC.

If the second route is followed for the immediate rejection, the AE carefully reads the paper, and writes a thorough draft rationale explaining the reasons for rejection. The AE sends the draft rationale to both the EiC and the Area Editor for comments and concurrence. The EiC and Area Editor also read the paper and provide comments on the rationale. Only when all three individuals agree that indeed a immediate rejection is appropriate, can the paper then be rejected without sending it out for further review. The rejection letter to the authors can only come from the Area Editor or the EiC; the AE workspace on ScholarOne does not provide the option for immediate rejection. Should there be disagreement about the immediate rejection decision, the paper must be sent out for review following the usual procedures.

Immediate rejections should normally be executed within 10 business days of receiving the paper assignment.

Inviting Reviewers

Apart from communicating editorial decisions, reviewer selection is probably the most important task of an Associate Editor. A misstep here will lead to delays, frustration, and author complaints. It is therefore advisable to think carefully about whom to invite. The ideal reviewer is probably somebody currently active in the given area, who is up to date on recent developments, and who will read the paper in depth, providing detailed suggestions for improvement. It is often useful to invite a mixture of senior and junior referees. Senior reviewers are able to provide broad perspectives and insight and often can make helpful connections to related areas. More junior referees, particularly those who are actively working on the topic, will be able to provide detailed comments about the contributions of the paper. Outstanding senior doctoral students working on a given topic can and should be selected as reviewers, but it would be unwise to rely solely on student reviewers for any given paper. Many potential reviewers will already have a history of reviewing for theTransactions; through S1M, AEs can see which papers each reviewer has reviewed in the past, which can be helpful to get a sense of the reviewer's load and responsiveness.

Thestates, in Section 8.8.2.A.4, that for all scientific articles submitted (excluding those that are prescreened), the AE shall select at least two referees who are competent and have experience in the area of the subject matter of the article. Thus, aminimumof two independent reviews are required for each article. Usually, though, three (and, in rare cases, four) reviews are obtained.

The process of reviewer selection in S1M is quite straightforward. There are three stages:select(create a list of reviewers whom you would like to invite),invite(actually send out letters of invitation), andassign(the reviewer is assigned to the paper only upon the reviewers' agreement to take on the review; this happens automatically). You will find papers in their various states in the “Associate Editor Lists” section of your AE Center: the dashboard will provide summary numbers of how many papers have a certai