Purpose of Reviewing
Reviewing papers for IEEE Communications Standards Magazine has two functions: to provide feedback on articles that guarantees a high-quality publication and to provide feedback to authors that may assist them in preparing quality manuscripts for submission in the future. Reviewers should strive to offer feedback that is useful to the authors in revising their manuscripts for publication or rewriting a manuscript for resubmission to IEEE Communications Standards Magazine at a later date.
The former option is appropriate for those articles that have sufficient technical content so that judicious revisions can result in a high-quality article for publication. The latter option is appropriate when the author(s) have submitted an article that is not appropriate for publication, or even consideration, in IEEE Communications Standards Magazine. In the latter case, the reviewer’s report should contain sufficient information to allow the author to understand the type of article that is appropriate. Indeed, it is probably appropriate to have a canned description that can be used.
In some sense, reviewing for IEEE Communications Standards Magazine is more closely akin to participating in the development of the articles than in passing judgment on suitability. However, reviewers should be clear about whether they are asking for a revision that is expected to render the article publishable or are asking for a revision that should be submitted as a new article and rejecting the current one. With respect to the latter, statements such as "The article in its current form is not appropriate for publication in IEEE Communications Standards Magazine. On the other hand, there are several ideas that, if developed, could lead to an article that would be very interesting to the readers of IEEE Communications Standards Magazine. For example, ..." are entirely appropriate.
Suitability for Publication
Value to Readers
The usefulness to readers is the single most important issue for the reviewer to consider. Articles should be timely, relevant, tutorial in nature, and nonredundant.
Everything that is said must be technically correct. Technical sloppiness must be pointed out in every instance to the best of the ability of the reviewer.
Reviewers should be aware that the primary purpose of IEEE Communications Standards Magazine is to inform readers on topics of interest to the communications community. Articles must be written in a style that is understandable to the general practitioner in the communications field as well as to the networking specialist practicing in a different area. Key concepts must be clearly explained and articles should cite other articles that provide background information liberally. Where such references are neglected, the reviewer should strive to correct the deficiencies by either offering specific citations or pointing the author in the right direction. For example, the reviewer might suggest that the authors consult the "last four years of IEEE PCS, IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, or ACM CCR for relevant articles, especially those of a survey nature."
Reviewers should feel at liberty to suggest additional material for inclusion in the article. Again, the primary consideration is the value to the reader, and reviewers should not be shy about asking for additions that increase the value of the article to the reader.
Need for the Article
The article must be nonredundant in the sense that there are not already appropriate tutorially-oriented articles readily accessible to the readers of IEEE Communications Standards Magazine. The article must be of interest to the communications community in the sense that it covers a topic that either uses or impacts communications standards.
The archival value of articles in IEEE Communications Standards Magazine is mostly historical. If the article is plowing new ground, which is entirely appropriate so long as the new ground is covered in a tutorial fashion, the new ground should be identified as such. Similarly, if an idea builds upon other ideas, liberal reference to source documents should be practiced.
This is NOT a paper intended for a theoretical or highly specialized scientific journal!
- Articles should be tutorial in nature and should be written in a style comprehensible to readers outside the specialty of the article.
- Articles may be edited for clarity and grammatical accuracy, and will be copy edited according to the magazine's style.
- Articles should not exceed 4500 words (Introduction through Conclusions, excluding figures, tables and captions). Abstract, and References are also excluded from the word count.
- Figures and tables should be limited to a combined total of six.
- Mathematical equations should not be used. In justified cases up to three simple equations may be allowed, provided you have the consent of the Guest Editor. The inclusion of more than three equations requires permission from the Editor-in-Chief (EiC).
- References should be included only to guide readers to more information on the topic; the reference list should not include every available source. A limit of 15 archival references is recommended. The inclusion of more than 15 references requires permission from the EiC. References to web pages should be checked immediately for accessibility before submitting material to the Publications Staff. Each reference to online sources (website URLs, web-posted papers/reports) is required to show an “accessed” date.
Please check if the reviewed work is a part of a larger entity containing several articles on the same topic, i.e., a Special Issue (SI) or a Feature Topic (FT). If yes, please take this into account in your review (some issues you think are missing in the reviewed article could be, in fact, discussed in some of the related articles). If necessary ask the editor handling the SI or FT for some information on the content of remaining articles.
If you have trouble using the review form in Manuscript Central, you can print the form locally from your browser and submit manually to the editor. Please advise the editor you are having trouble with Manuscript Central and so are submitting your review in this manner.
Summary of guidelines for review of manuscripts submitted to IEEE Communications Standards Magazine for consideration for publication:
- Please provide a one-paragraph description of the content of this manuscript.
- Please identify and discuss the contribution of this manuscript. Please include in your discussion items such as the following:
- Does the paper have significant tutorial content? That is, is there enough background provided so that the generalist in networking can understand its main contributions? Elaborate.
- Does the paper contain original contributions? What is the nature of the contributions?
- Is there a description of lessons learned that are given to the readers to help them avoid pitfalls in their own work?
- Is there a need for a paper such as this in the IEEE Communications Society community? For example, are there articles that are already available which cover more or less the same topic at about the same depth?
- Please comment on the organization of the paper, and offer any suggestions that you think will improve the paper and its readability.
- Please comment on the technical correctness of the manuscript in general, identify any specific technical inaccuracies that you find, and make suggestions for correcting those.
- Please discuss the quality of the citations in this manuscript. If you think the citations should be improved, please provide specific references or sources of articles, such as journals or magazines, that should be consulted.
- If the manuscript does not require major revision, please provide a list of minor changes, such as spelling or grammatical errors, that need to be made. Please use the format "p. 7., l. 18 somth ==> smooth" to mean "on line 18 of page 7, correct the spelling from somth to smooth."
- Please provide a summary comment on the overall suitability of the paper for publication in IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, assuming the recommended revisions are made. For example, if this is an outstanding contribution, please so state. If a major revision is needed, please so state. If the manuscript requires major editing, please so state.