Editor And Reviewer Guide

1. Home
2. Information
3. Editor And Reviewer Guide

  The following points are intended to serve as general information for editors to help achieve high quality, as well as fast and accurate publications. The editor's primary responsibilities are to obtain the draft manuscripts, conduct the peer review process, ensure the author addresses the peer review in an appropriate fashion, and check the final camera-ready manuscript for any technical, grammatical or typographical errors.

1. Role of the Editor

• As a member of the editorial board of the publication, the editor is responsible for ensuring that the publication maintains the highest quality while adhering to the publication policies and procedures of the KSII TIIS (KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems)
  
• The most important role of the editor is of finding appropriate reviewers for a manuscript. For each paper that the editor-in-chief assigns, the transactions assistant will send the editor a letter requesting that he/she handle the review process of the paper. Editors should assign more than two reviewers within a week upon receiving their editor assignment.
  
• The editor is responsible for making a decision on an "accept", "reject", or "revision" based on reviewer's reports. For the revision, the revised manuscript will be assigned to the same editor and sent out for a second round of reviews. Usually the same reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but at the discretion of the editor. It is noticed that no more than one revision is given to the authors. Unless the revised version does meet the quality or requirements, the paper might be rejected without additional revision. There is an exception for the third revision chance given to the authors only if the editor-in-chief or editor allows for a special case such as rare paper, very high quality paper, or exceptionally interesting paper to the readers.
  
• The editors for the publications of the TIIS are responsible for the consistently high marks our transactions receive in the peer review community. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality and value of our publications are increased.

2. Deadlines for Regular Review

• Editors have a week to submit a list of reviewers to the transactions assistant. Reviewers are given 2 weeks to review the paper. Editors are given a week to submit a recommendation to the editor-in-chief once all or enough of the reviews have come in. In revision case, authors have a maximum of a month to submit their revised manuscripts. The deadlines for the regular review process are as follows:
  

• Review Process	Deadlines
  Selection of reviewers	1 week
  Review process	2 weeks
  Editor's recommendation	1 week

3. Making Decisions on Manuscripts

• The editor will make a decision on the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers. The editor's recommendation must be well justified and explained in detail. In cases where the revision is requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained. The editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. The guidelines of decisions for publication are as follows:

• Decision	Description
  Accept	An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the paper with no further modifications. The paper will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers.
  Reject	The manuscript is not suitable for the TIIS publication.
  Revision	The paper is conditionally accepted with some requirements. A revision means that the paper should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. We strongly discourage editors from making a decision based on their own review of the manuscript if a revision had been previously required.

1. Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers are selected by a member of the Editorial Board in order to review a paper submitted for the KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems. Reviewer invitation is processed via e-mail. Reviewer selection is based on the area, publishing record, and academic or industrial background of the candidate mainly in the TIIS pool or occasionally in outside. Thus you are suggested to join the membership of TIIS if you want to be a reviewer. You can accept to review the paper or decline. In the latter case, you are strongly suggested to recommend an appropriate reviewer candidate. The candidate recommendation is greatly appreciated.

2. Quick Review Required

• The most important aim of TIIS is quick publishing. This asks you to review very quickly. You are given 2 weeks for the first round of review and 1 week for the second round of review. You must agree that time is so important for the rapidly changing IT technologies and applications trend. Please respect the deadline. Authors undoubtedly appreciate your quick review.

3. Review

• Reviewer will perform the paper review based on the main criteria provided below. Please provide detailed public comments for each criterion, also available to the author.
  • How this manuscript advances this field of research and/or contributes something new to the literature?
  • Relevance of this manuscript to the readers of TIIS?
  • Is the manuscript technically sound?
  • Is the paper clearly written and well organized? Are all figures and tables appropriately provided and are their resolution good quality?
  • Does the introduction state the objectives of the manuscript encouraging the reader to read on?
  • Are the references relevant and complete? Supply missing references.
• Please supply any information that you think will be useful to the author in revision for enhancing quality of the paper or for convincing him/her of the mistakes.

4. Additional Review Comments

• If you find any already known results related to the manuscript, please give references to earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If the reasoning is incorrect or ambiguous, please indicate specifically where and why. If you would like to suggest that the paper be rewritten, give specific suggestions regarding which parts of the paper should be deleted, added or modified, and please indicate how.

5. Anonymity

• Do not identify yourself or your organization within the review text.