Information about the review process
The review process is assisted by the Manuscript Central tool, for the author,
editor, and reviewers. The steps are outlined below.
Overall Review Process
- Paper is submitted via
by an author contact. If the paper is a regular paper, the author
chooses 'regular paper' as the paper type and Jeff Gray as
editor-in-chief (EIC). The paper may also be part of a theme
issue, in which case the author tags it as 'special section
paper' and chooses Bernhard Rumpe as EIC. In this case the
author needs to specify a preferred editor, if the editor of
the theme issue is known. Otherwise, please provide a note
telling us which theme issue is expecting this paper.
- Paper is received and assigned a reference identifier and acknowledged
to the author contact by the automated system.
- Paper is assigned an editor to oversee the review process and make a
recommendation to the editors-in-chief. Editors are assigned within 2
weeks of paper receipt. Theme issue papers are immediately assigned
to the editor(s) of the theme issue.
- The editor recruits at least 3 reviewers for the paper and negotiates
a timeframe for the review. The goal is to receive reviews within 8
weeks of the reviewers' acceptance of the review task.
- Reviewers submit their reviews through Manuscript Central.
- Once all reviews are received, the editor makes a recommendation
regarding paper acceptance to the editors-in-chief. The goal for the
editor to make a recommendation to the editors-in-chief after receiving
the completed reviews is 1 week.
- The editors-in-chief notify the paper's contact author with the
result of the review process, including reviewers' comments. Possible
outcomes are that the paper is accepted, the paper is accepted with
minor modifications (based on reviewers' comments), the paper is
conditionally accepted with major changes (in which case final
acceptance depends on results of a second review in which reviewers
check that specified concerns are adequately addressed in the revision),
and rejection. Note that in the case where major modifications are
requested, the editor and reviewers are the same when the paper is
re-submitted. (In the case of a major revision, the paper should be
by the contact author, and a note needs to be added that the paper is
a re-submission. The note needs to include the original paper
identifier.) The goal is for the editors-in-chief to contact paper
authors within 1 week of receiving the editor's recommendation.
From an author's point of view the process is
- Submit a paper to
The paper must be in PDF format. Additional information
required as part submission includes paper title, authors,
abstract, length, category, and author contact e-mail. If the
paper is to be considered as part of a theme issue, the author
adds a note naming the theme issue, and the editor in charge
of it at the time of submission.
- Contact author receives almost instant e-mail confirming receipt of the
paper and a reference number.
- Contact author receives e-mail from editors-in-chief regarding the
outcome of the review process, including reviewer comments on the paper.
See #7 above for possible outcomes. This mail should be received within
12 weeks of the initial submission.
From a reviewer's point of view the process is
- A query is received from an editor via the automated system about
being a reviewer for the paper. The query includes a proposed review
deadline and an abstract of the paper.
- If the reviewer accepts the review task, the reviewer accesses the
automated system to obtain the paper.
- The reviewer reviews the paper, fills out the SoSyM review form via
Manuscript Central and submits it. The editor makes a
recommendation to the editors-in-chief regarding the paper.
- If the paper acceptance recommendation is a request for a major
revision, then when the paper is re-submitted, the reviewer will receive
the revised version from the editor, and the process re-commences at
Sample review form
- Review form
(can be changed for different types of papers); this review form is
part of a reviewer's workspace in the automated system, Manuscript