As an Editor of the Editorial Board, you will be contributing greatly to the prestige of our journal and the high standards of peer review. The role of the Editor in scholarly publishing is the management of the peer review of manuscripts by reviewers. The Editors for the publications of JCM are responsible for the consistency and reputation of our journals. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality and value of our publications are increased. JCM requires the peer review of all papers that appear in our journals and papers are selected for publication on the basis of novelty, quality and appropriateness.
The Editor-in-Chief will assign an Editor to the manuscript based on a submission's subject area, by sending the Editor an email requesting that he/she handles the review process. The author is notified that the manuscript has been sent out for review and is given the name of the assigned Editor. If a submission is sent directly to the Editor, he/she can directly arrange the peer review with or without notifying the Editor-in-Chief until a final Accept/Reject decision has been made.
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the Editor decide to not assign reviewers but instead reject the submission, he/she is required to provide comments to be returned to the author.
Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to preferable 3 but at least 2 experts for review. Suggestions for referees from the author are welcome, though these recommendations may or may not be used. Editors will solicit reviewers with the title and an abstract of the submission and, if accepted, send reviewers the submission via email. Editors should guide referees with Reviewer Guidelines (including the Review Form). Referees directly return their reviews to the Editor by email. Unless the Editor makes specific arrangements with a reviewer, the deadline to return a completed review is 6 weeks.
Referees advise the Editor, who is responsible for making the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the Editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The Editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the Editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. The Editor should be sure to never disclose the names of reviewers to authors.
Accept - An accept decision means that an Editor is accepting the submission "as is" with no further changes required by the reviewers. In this case, the Editor will forward the decision to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will notify the author the decision with copying the Editor, and guide the author in the final submission and further production. The submission will not be seen again by the Editor or by the reviewers.
Major Revision - A major revision means that the submission should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. If a major revision is recommended, the Editor will directly inform the author to make and return the revision to him/her for a second round of reviews. The decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may usually include verbatim comments by the referees. Major revision must be accompanied by a letter from the author indicating the main modifications and how the concerns stated by the reviewers have been addressed in the resubmission. Usually the original reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but that is at the discretion of the Editor. The Editor will provide the reviewers with their previous reviews and the author’s letter for reference. Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions. Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the major revision.
Minor Revision - The minor revision should not go back to the reviewers. The author is informed by the Editor directly, and will send the revision to the original Editor together with a short summary about the modifications authors have made and author's response to reviewer's comments. The Editor will evaluate the revision and make a final Accept/Reject decision. Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision.
Reject - The manuscript is not suitable for publication. The author is notified directly by the Editor, copying the Editor-in-Chief if the manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor may otherwise choose to forward the decision to the Editor-in-Chief who will contact the author with this final decision. In any case, comments should be provided by the Editor, and returned to the author.
Deadlines for Regular Review
♦ Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the submission.
♦ Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the major revision.
♦ Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions.
♦ Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions.
♦ Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision.
Submissions are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has been neither submitted to, nor published in, another publication. Concurrent submission to other publications will result in immediate rejection of the submission.
Submissions previously published in conference proceedings are eligible for consideration provided that the author informs the Editors at the time of submission and that the submission has undergone substantial revision. In the new submission, authors are required to cite the previous publication and very clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work. Author should supply a copy of the previous version to the Editor, and provide a brief description of the differences between the submitted manuscript and the previous version.
If the authors provide a previously published conference submission, Editors please take the time before assigning reviewers, to check the submission to determine whether there has been sufficient new material added to warrant publication in our journal. The JCM guidelines are that the submission should contain a significant amount of new material, that is, material that has not been published elsewhere. New results are not required; however, the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, and so on, of the conference submission. The paper submitting to the journal should differ from the previously published material by at least 30 percent.
If Editors believe that the new submission warrant publication in our journal, all the reviewers should be clearly notified about the revision and extension nature of the manuscript. The copy of the previous version and the brief description should also be provided to the reviewers.
Copyright © 2013-2020 Journal of Communications, All Rights Reserved