The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Journal of Convergence and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office. Prospective organizers of a Special Issue should contact the Editor in the first instance to agree the appropriateness of content, the number and size of papers, the refereeing process (including the names of prospective referees), and the timescale for receipt of final copy after reviewing.
Overall process for publishing a paper will be taken approximately 5 months after initial submission. Reviewing process will take about 3 months, and then publishing process will not exceed 2 months.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. The Journal of Journal of Convergence has a policy of using double blind refereeing (as detailed in the previous section), with neither referee from the country of the submitting author. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript support followings key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation:
- Scientific merit: notably scientific rigor, accuracy and correctness.
- Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts.
- Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing.
- Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
- Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results.
- Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?
- Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?
- Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
- Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
- Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
- Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted.
- Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 3 months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. All our referees sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within 1 week. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
Editor’s Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
EiC immediate decisions
After the admin checklist or AE assignment stage, a manuscript may be forwarded to the EiC to determine if peer review is necessary. The EiC will study the paper and decide either to send it into peer review or to return it with one of the immediate decisions as follows.
- Immediate reject: no further consideration
- Immediate reject: submit to another journal
After peer review and AE recommendation, the EiC will study the paper together with reviewer comments and AE recommendation to make one of the following decisions.
- Accept pending minor revision: no external review required
- Reject/Resubmit: major revisions needed and new external review required
- Reject with recommendation to submit to another journal
Becoming a Referee for Journal of Convergence
If you are not currently a referee for Journal of Convergence but would like to be added to the list of referees for this title, please contact the Editor:
Prof. James J. (Jong Hyuk) Park, Seoul National University of Science and Technology (SeoulTech), Korea (email@example.com)
The benefits of refereeing for Journal of Convergence include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for Journal of Convergence as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organizations.