TOPLAS Guidelines for Associate Editors
As Associate Editor (AE), you are responsible for reading the submission, assigning reviewers, evaluating the reviews, and ultimately making a recommendation for the acceptance or rejection of the paper. The details of these processes are described below.
Quality and efficiency in reviewing is essential to the success of TOPLAS. To publish papers in a timely fashion we ask you to respond to all requests to assign reviewers and make recommendations as quickly as possible. Our standard invitation letter to reviewers asks them to return their reviews within five weeks.
Desk (or Bench) Reject Policy
ACM permits both desk (or bench) rejects and "assisted” desk rejects. These are rejections based on the judgment of the EiC or an AE that a paper is either out of scope or so far from acceptable as to make external reviews unnecessary. Assisted desk rejects may involve obtaining one outside review to corroborate an AE's judgment.
Articles may be desk-rejected for the following reasons:
- The topic is clearly out of scope for TOPLAS.
- The work clearly does not meet sufficient standards of novelty or quality of presentation.
- Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or simultaneous submission.
- The manuscript is incomplete or incorrectly formatted.
All refereed articles accepted for publication must have at least three qualified reviews. Soliciting fewer than three reviews is fine for clear reject cases, but not sufficient for articles that are accepted. In all cases, the final decision is within the discretion of the Editor in Chief.
Authors have the right to appeal such decisions.
If you feel that a paper assigned to you should be desk-rejected, please perform the following steps: change the reviews required to the number you have received (often 0), recommend a rejection and enter some review comments from yourself justifying the desk reject. Once you submit the recommendation, it will be sent to the Editor in Chief for review.
Plagiarism Checking
When you view a paper, you will see a tab titled “Manuscript Details.” Click on the tab to find more information on the paper. Scroll down to ‘Plagiarism Check – iThenticate’ to find the results of similarity check to see whether the paper has a large overlap with any published work. ACM requires that submissions based on published conference papers have at least 25% new material (see http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/simultaneous-submissions). TOPLAS requires at least 30% new material over the conference version of the work. This does not necessarily mean 30% of the core technical contributions are new; the journal version may add value through significantly improved exposition, for example. Where a TOPLAS paper extends a conference version, we want the TOPLAS version to be clearly the definitive version that would be suitable for reading by a junior researcher.
If you find the paper has too much similarity with an existing published work, contact the Editor in Chief for discussion.
Upon submission, authors are required to indicate whether a paper is an extended conference paper, and if so, to provide the original paper. The response to the conference paper extension question, as well as other information, can be found in the Manuscript Information tab, by scrolling down to “Show” in Author-Supplied Data section.
Journal-First Submissions
TOPLAS has agreements with multiple conferences allowing journal-first submission of papers. With the agreement of the conference program committee, journal-first submissions will be presented at the conference along with other papers at the conference. The paper itself is considered a TOPLAS publication rather than a conference publication. To be considered for presentation, journal-first submissions must be submitted at least three months before the corresponding conference submission to allow enough time for minor revisions. Authors must indicate their interest in conference presentation and identify the conference in their cover letter. The Editor in Chief will then notify the program committee chair to obtain an initial agreement that the topic of the paper appears to be in scope for the conference. The PC chair is also notified at the time of acceptance and has the (rarely exercised) option to deny presentation. In the case where reviewers require major revisions to the submission, it will typically be difficult to complete revisions quickly enough; the paper may roll over to the next year’s conference and that year’s program committee will be contacted.
Review Procedures
An AE is responsible for finding at least three (3) appropriate reviewers with the necessary knowledge and experience for a manuscript, and for supervising the review process until a decision is reached. Reviewers should not only be expert on the topic, but also have the appropriate seniority to assess the paper. There are three steps to the invitation process (along with days in which they should be processed):
- Select (7 days)
- Assign (1 day)
- Invite (7 days)
Assigning Reviewers
- Log in to Manuscript Central.
- Via the Associate Editor Dashboard, click on the “Awaiting Reviewer Selection” queue.
- Click on “View Submission” to view the paper.
- Click on “Take Action.”
- Scroll down to see the results returned from Reviewer Connect Results* or to search for an existing reviewer in the system or to create a new reviewer account. NOTE: Before creating a new account for a reviewer, use the reviewer search option to see if there is an account already in the system. This will allow you to choose an existing Manuscript Central account. Please also check whether the email address of the reviewer is still valid.
- Click on “Add” to assign the selected reviewer.
- Click on the “Invite” button to view the draft invitation letter, then send it out.
A reviewer should be able to accept or decline the task automatically. However, in some cases, a separate step must be taken to mark the reviewer as agreed or otherwise, in the system.
Minor revisions need only be re-reviewed by the handling AE or the AE and one original reviewer (if preferred by the AE).
Major revisions may go back out to the original reviewers. However, fewer than three returned reviews may be deemed sufficient for a decision. Waiting for a third review may cause overly delayed turnaround times.
For papers submitted as journal-first, reviewers should be made aware in the invitation letter that they are reviewing it not only as a TOPLAS paper but as a potential presentation. Reviewers should make a recommendation regarding presentation. Text similar to the following may be appended to the invitation letter if not present already:
The authors have submitted this paper for publication in TOPLAS as well as possible presentation at the XXX conference, in accordance with the agreement between XXX and TOPLAS. Please take this request into account when reviewing and, in addition to providing your recommendation and comments regarding acceptability to TOPLAS, please also advise whether this paper is suitable for such a presentation.
To make an immediate decision, change the value of the "reviews required to make decision" box from the default value of 3 to 2, 1, or even 0 (such as in the case of a desk reject OR in case of minor corrections to be verified by you only). In either case, the responsible AE should explain their recommendation in the message to the EIC and also in the comments to the authors. A good AE recommendation will synthesize the most important points from the reviewers, especially identifying points of consensus.
*Reviewer Connect Results:
When a paper is submitted, the Manuscript Central Referee Locator tool automatically finds a pool of potential reviewers using an algorithm that looks at the article title, abstracts, keywords, and other metadata contained in the submission. It then compares that information with published papers in the Web of Science from the last three to five years.
A pool of potential reviewers is then auto-suggested. A list of up to 30 reviewers is provided in order of relevancy, providing e-mail addresses as well as links into the Web of Science to view information about their published papers. This feature is not intended to replace your AE experience, knowledge, or judgment in selecting reviewers. However, it is an additional tool to help search for reviewers.
To ensure a timely review process, it is recommended that you send review invitations to more than the minimum required number of reviewers (3). Papers are often stalled while waiting for review invitations that never receive a response. Inviting 5–6 reviewers will help to more quickly secure the necessary 3 reviews. Occasionally, it may be necessary to request reviews from even more reviewers. If more than 3 reviewers accept the invitation and after the paper receives three reviews, you can, if you wish, make your recommendation for the paper without waiting for the additional reviews. Once you submit the recommendation, you will need to manually remove the extra reviewers using the blue "remove" button. A letter will pop up that can be sent to the reviewer alerting them that their review is no longer needed. At that point, the reviewer can no longer access the manuscript from their reviewer dashboard.
Review Supervision
The system automatically sends out reminder emails to the reviewers. However, automated reminders are easy to ignore, so AEs should check their Associate Editor Center every few weeks, at least, to maintain a reasonable turnaround time. Please send personal reminders to reviewers, if necessary, by clicking on the reviewer’s name.
Review Deadline
To grant an extension to a reviewer:
- Go to the Associate Editor Dashboard.
- Search for the paper (via Manuscript ID or via Manuscript Title).
- Click on "Take Action."
- Click on “Grant an extension” underneath the reviewer’s name.
- Set the new due date.
You may also ask the journal assistant to grant such extensions.
Making a Preliminary Decision
For each review you will receive an e-mail notification; when all the reviews are completed, you may make your preliminary recommendation that will be sent to the Editors-in-Chief for approval (this decision should take into consideration your own opinion of the paper, as well as the general consensus of the reviewers).
- Find a paper in the AE Dashboard, “Awaiting AE Recommendation” queue.
- Select the paper, then click on “Take Action.”
- Select a recommendation, then write in your comments to the EiC and Author.
- Click on “Save as Draft” or “Submit.”
There are four decision options:
- Accept a paper when a submission is excellent and there are no suggestions for improvement. In general, a paper is recommended for minor revision when all reviews are either accept or minor revision. If the AE would like to recommend minor revision when a manuscript still has a major revision review, the AE needs to elaborate on the recommendation and discuss this with the EiC.
- Choose Minor Revision when you feel the paper should be accepted after revisions that can be completed in a small number of weeks. There should be little risk that the paper is not going to be accepted.
- Choose Major Revision if a paper has real potential, but a large component should be redone and re-reviewed. In general, a manuscript should not go through two rounds of major revisions. If an AE would like to recommend a revised manuscript for another major revision, an AE should elaborate this recommendation in the message to the EiC or discuss it with the EiC directly.
- Reject a paper when the submission does not meet publication standards or when reviewers still have major concerns after one round of major revision. If a reviewer recommends Reject on the first revision, this can usually be taken as a signal that they are not interested in seeing further revisions. Often rejection is the right choice at this point.
As an associate editor, your role in providing a recommendation for decision should be more than just an aggregation of the reviewers’ opinions. Please take time to look over the reviewer comments and determine the best course of action for the paper given the content of the comments and their underlying reasons for recommending revision of a manuscript.
For example, if all reviewers suggest a major revision and the overall tone is negative toward the paper, or there are multiple significant issues with the paper, it may not be feasible for the authors to complete all of the required changes within the one month revision timeframe. In such a case it would be better for the AE to recommend a rejection, and have the authors re-submit a new manuscript that takes reviewer feedback into account. As a reminder, once a major revision has been submitted, the next course of action must be either a minor revision or rejection. Thus, if you don’t believe the authors can satisfy the reviewers’ comments in the next revision, it’s better to reject at this point in the review process, instead of waiting until the next revision, and being forced to reject at that point.
In cases where a reviewer has not provided a sufficient review for the manuscript, you may wish to rescind the review. This can be done in ManuscriptCentral by navigating to the list of reviews, and click the “rescind” link below the reviewer’s name. In such a case it would be good to provide feedback to the reviewer about why his/her review was not sufficient and not used in the decision of the paper. In such a case it may be possible to receive an updated review from this reviewer, or a new reviewer may need to be invited.
The AE should read the reviews and author responses in detail and use his/her best judgement in deciding whether the paper has met the requirements for publication, as it may not always be possible to achieve unanimity after a review cycle. In such cases soliciting additional reviews may be useful.
Reviewer Discussions
In cases where there is disagreement between the reviewers, it is often useful to initiate a discussion among the reviewers, to achieve a more informed consensus. Discussions can be handled in multiple ways. You might hold such a discussion over a videoconference. However, a collaborative editing tool such as Google Docs is an attractive alternative, since some reviewers may wish to preserve their anonymity, and reviewers in different time zones might find it easier to participate asynchronously.
Handling a Survey or Tutorial Paper
If the manuscript is a tutorial or survey paper, reviewers are asked to discuss whether the manuscript has served the defined goals of survey/tutorial papers well or not. These paper types, and their goals, are defined below.
- Survey Paper: A paper that summarizes and organizes recent research results in a novel way that integrates and adds understanding to work in the field. A survey article assumes a general knowledge of the area; it emphasizes the classification of the existing literature, developing a perspective on the area, and evaluating trends.
- Tutorial paper: A paper that organizes and introduces work in the field. A tutorial paper assumes its audience is inexpert; it emphasizes the basic concepts of the field and provides concrete examples that embody these concepts.
Handling a Revised Paper
When a revision is submitted, it should be automatically reassigned to you as AE.
- For a resubmission of a paper with minor revisions, check that the authors have completed the necessary corrections and send out for re-review or make your decision as described above, depending on the magnitude of the requested changes. Minor revisions need only be re-reviewed by the handling AE or the AE and one original reviewer (if preferred by the AE).
- For a resubmission with major revisions, the original reviewers will be automatically selected. However, you must take action to invite some or all of them to review the revised paper. Major revisions may go back out to the original reviewers. However, fewer than three returned reviews may be deemed sufficient for a decision. Waiting for a third review may cause overly delayed turn-around times.
Accessing Previous Versions of a Revision
You have access to all versions of a manuscript. Revisions are indicated by a revision number appended to the manuscript ID (e.g., R1 or R2). To view decision-related correspondence regarding a previous version, scroll down to “Version History” and click on the “Switch Details” button.
Revised files will also include a link to the Cover Letter on the header.
When you are on a task-related tab, such as “Invite Reviewers,” the version history will appear on the right side of the screen. Clicking on the “View Review Details” for the previous version will give you the Author’s Response, Decision Letter, and Reviews.
For further instructions:
Refer to the ScholarOne tutorial for editors or contact the journal admin at: