Systems, Man & Cybernetics - April 2017 - 5

puts their names in a list (this task
is called selecting in ScholarOne).
Inviting a reviewer actually sends
the reviewer the invitation to review.
The AE can add possible reviewers
without inviting them (in case the AE
needs them later in the process). As
a rule of thumb, we suggest that the
AE add all reviewers he or she finds
at this stage and then initially invite
four. This way, if later reviewers decline the invitation or do not reply,
then the AE can quickly invite from
the list of selected reviewers.
Once reviewers are selected, the
AE can invite them one by one or
select an invite-all option. When inviting one by one, ScholarOne opens
an invitation e‐mail for the reviewer.
If the AE knows the reviewer, then it
is a good idea that he or she slightly
personalize this e‐mail to increase
the chance of the reviewer accepting.
If the AE doesn't know the reviewer,
then the AE should mention why he or
she has selected that reviewer.
The AE Checks
on the Reviewers
We need to keep the turnaround time
for the magazine as short as possible,
so the AE must invite reviewers within
one or two weeks from receiving the
manuscript in the AE account. The AE
must also follow up with reviewers. If
there is no response to the follow up,
then the AE should send the reviewer
a reminder e‐mail. The ScholarOne
system also sends reminders, but these
are clearly generated by an automated
script and easier to ignore.
Reviewers who accept the invitation are automatically assigned. The
AE should routinely check on the
responses to the invitation and send
a reminder to reviewers who do not
answer. Additional reviewers should
be invited if needed, and automatic
reminders to the reviewers will be
sent by ScholarOne. An overview of
all communications and actions for
a specific article can be seen when
selecting the "Audit trail" tab in
ScholarOne. Once the required number of reviewers has agreed to perform the review, ScholarOne stops

sending reminders to the remaining
invited reviewers.
The AE Checks Reviews
Few of us have received explicit training in how to efficiently write effective
reviews, so it is important that the AE
reads the reviews and ensures that
they are appropriate before submitting his or her recommendation. The
AE should check that the reviewers
have summarized the key points of the
article and described why (or why not)
these points support the publication of
the article in this journal.
The AE should determine whether
the reviewer has made comments
about some or all of the following.
◆ Is the title appropriate?
◆ Does the abstract summarize the
introduction, methods, results,
and discussion?
◆ Is the research question clear and
well justified?
◆ Does the manuscript cite appropriate related literature?
◆ Is the technical approach logical
and rigorous?
◆ Did research involve novel questions, hypotheses, techniques, or
interpretations such that a significant contribution is made?
◆ Are the results clear and statistically rigorous?
◆ Does the discussion flow logically from the introduction and
the results?
◆ Is the article well written and
organized?
The AE's Recommendation
When the required number of reviews
have come in, the AE receives an
e‐mail. Now the AE should make a
recommendation. If the AE is lucky,
the reviewers are unanimous and all
recommend the same action for the
article. However, in many cases, the
reviews are quite disparate, and then
it is up to the AE to make a coherent recommendation.
The AE should keep in mind that
the review process is also a tool to ensure high‐quality articles. Reviews are
often very practical, telling the authors
what to fix and giving suggestions,
Ap ri l 2017

but sometimes a review only criticizes the article. It is up to the AE
to be a fair and neutral judge and
decide whether the reviewer's criticism is fair and constructive and,
especially if the AE recommends a
resubmission and reviewer comments
are ambiguous, indicate to the authors
how to proceed. Ambiguity may be
significant; e.g., one reviewer may recommend removing the description
and results of an experiment from the
article, while another recommends
focusing the article more around the
experiment. If the AE thinks both
alternatives are acceptable, he or she
can tell the authors that it is up to
them to choose. Ultimately, the AE
should make a recommendation that
is useful to the authors.
◆ If the AE recommends rejection,
a proper motivation for the rejection should be provided.
◆ If the AE recommends that the
article be revised and resubmitted,
ambiguity should be resolved in
the reviewers' recommendations.
Peer review is not a voting system.
The reviewers are experts whose opinions the AE solicits before making
a recommendation. Reviewers might
voice a strong opinion on the article;
however, the AE's final objective is to
provide the author with constructive
feedback, and the AE recommendation
is also there to help the authors interpret the reviewers' comments.
When the AE makes the recommendation, he or she should ensure
that there are no reviewers in the list
who still have to return their review.
Either these reviewers should be uninvited, or the AE should increase
the number of required reviews to
match the number of reviewers active and wait for the reviews. If the
AE leaves these reviewers in the list,
then they may still return their review after the AE has made the recommendation or after the decision
letter has been created. In a second
round, these reviewers will find that
their comments have not been communicated to the authors.
(continued on page 42)

IEEE SyStEmS, man, & CybErnEtICS magazInE

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Systems, Man & Cybernetics - April 2017