skip to main content
Advanced Search

Reviewer Guidelines

This page describes the TORS reviewing procedure in a role-independent way. It is recommended reading for authors and reviewers.

Steps in the Reviewing Procedure

  1. The editors-in-chief check the submission to judge whether it has some chance of ultimately being accepted. If they notice a serious problem, they contact the corresponding author to explain it. The most likely problems are that (a) the manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal (as explained on the pages on Author Guidelines); (b) though potentially relevant, it does not include adequate discussion of the implications of the work for the topics of the journal; and (c) the work does not yet approach the high level of maturity that is required for an ACM journal. The authors may be encouraged to submit a revised or rewritten manuscript very soon or at a later time.
  2. The editors-in-chief ask one of TORS’s regular associate editors – or, in the case of a submission to a special issue, the special issue associate editors – to manage the reviewing of the submission. (In general, the identity of the associate editor is made known to the authors by the time the reviews are sent to the authors for clarification, if not earlier.)
  3. The associate editor selects and invites 3 reviewers to review the submission.
  4. Once all reviews have been received, they are sent to the corresponding associate editor. The associate editor might invite the authors to submit an optional clarification message, if the reviewers need to further discuss and perhaps modify their reviews.
  5. The associate editor recommends an editorial decision about the submission, which is checked by the editors-in-chief to ensure consistent application of reviewing standards.
  6. Once the associate editor’s decision has been confirmed, the editors-in-chief communicate this decision to the authors, along with the reviews and the comments of the associate editor.

Decision Categories

Each decision on a submission falls into one of the following five categories:

  • Accept. The submission will appear in an upcoming issue of ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems.
  • Minor revisions. The current version of the manuscript requires minor revisions before further recommendations can be considered. The revised manuscript will be reviewed by the assigned associated editor and editors-in-chief for possible publication.
  • Major revisions. The current version of the manuscript requires major revisions before further recommendations can be considered. The revised manuscript will be reviewed by the original referees as well as the assigned associated editor and editors-in-chief for future publication.
  • Revise and resubmit. The authors are encouraged to submit a rewritten version of the manuscript, taking into account the critiques and suggestions of the reviewers and the associate editor. No specific conditions for acceptance of the rewritten submission are listed. If such a submission is made, it will be reviewed in its entirety. The set of reviewers will usually include some or all of the original reviewers.
  • Reject. The manuscript is declined for publication in ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems as it fails to meet at least one of the standards for breadth, impact, novelty or correctness required for publication. 

Timing of Resubmissions

For each of the 3 decision categories that involve submission of a revised or rewritten manuscript, there is a time limit for the resubmission, whose main purpose is to ensure timely publication of research results:

  • “Accepted with requirement of minor revisions”: 30 days
  • “Accepted conditional upon major revisions”: 90 days
  • “Rejected with option to resubmit after rewriting”: 120 days

Extensions can be granted if the authors have a particular reason for wanting to resubmit at a later date.

Communication between Reviewers and Associate Editors (AEs)

  1. Each person who is invited to prepare a review for TORS is selected for invitation by one AE (in the case of a special issue, by one of the special issue associate editors) on the basis of the invitee’s known interests and expertise.
  2. If the reviews of a submission reveal significant disagreements among the reviewers, the AE can choose to moderate a discussion among the reviewers before recommending a decision.
  3. Reviewers have access to the decision letter, which includes all of the reviews as well as the comments of the AE, via the ScholarOne Manuscripts system.
  4. If at any time a reviewer has questions, suggestions, or concerns, he or she can communicate directly with the responsible associate editor and/or the editors-in-chief.

Acknowledgment of Reviewing Service

On request, the editors-in-chief will gladly write for an individual reviewer a formal letter of acknowledgment of reviewing service that describes the contributions that the reviewer has made (in a way consistent with the policy of reviewer anonymity).

Instructions for Reviewers

To enter the manuscript management site, visit the following page:

Entering the manuscript management site

General ACM Policies

For more information on specific topics, see the ACM publications policies.