Special Issue Editor Resources

Note: Some of the links on this page are currently being updated


One of the most important ways to support the applied superconductivity community is to volunteer your service as an editor.  Hundreds of manuscripts are published in IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY special issues, which produce thousands of literature citations.  As part of the editorial team, you assume direct responsibility for assuring the high quality and integrity of published work in our field.

IEEE requirements and policies 

Organization of special issue editors

The editorial process

  • Please refer to the TAS Special Issue Author Resources to review the publication process from their point of view.
  • ScholarOne Manuscripts workflow
  • Policy for editors performing reviews

Tools for editors 

  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • IEEE guidelines for CrossCheck

Editors should note that Special Issues are not IEEE Conference Proceedings!  Please disregard content describing IEEE Conferences. Content related to Periodicals is more appropriate.

(private) Resources for the Managing Editor


 

The Special Issue Managing Editor (ME)

The ME has authority over, and accountability for, the entire editorial process for the special issue. The ME is accountable to the Editor-in-Chief of TAS, and to IEEE, for carrying out the process with integrity, expedience, and fairness as described by the IEEE publication guidelines. The ME has authority over all editorial decisions and can overturn (rescind) decisions, grant author appeals, or deny author requests. The ME is also responsible for assigning editors to manuscripts, resolving conflicts of interest, and appointing and assigning different editors as circumstances warrant. The ME may dismiss editors and reviewers associated with the special issue.


 

Lead Editors, 1 per ~100 manuscripts

Lead Editors (LEs) are accountable to the ME. LEs oversee ~10 technical editors (TEs) and a large block of manuscripts, and LEs may be called upon to nominate TEs for specific assignments. LEs review and approve all decisions made by TEs, and a LE may send back a decision for further review. LEs cannot, however, rescind a decision once approved. LEs have a responsibility to ensure that decision letters, for both accept and reject decisions, contain an adequate and reasonable explanation of the decision for the author. LEs should consult with the ME outside of the standard workflow in S1M for reject decisions.

LEs have responsibility for keeping the editorial process on schedule by monitoring the progress of TEs. A LE may act on behalf of a TE via proxy. LEs should offer advice on the editorial process, especially when adjudication over differing opinions is necessary.


 

Technical Editors, 1 per ~10 manuscripts

Technical Editors (TEs) work directly with authors and reviewers. TEs are accountable to Lead Editors and the ME. TEs have the responsibility to carry out the peer review process fairly and without bias. TEs have a responsibility to make decisions on manuscripts in a timely manner based on the outcome of peer review. Activities by the TE, reviewer, and author primarily determines the duration of peer review, and TE has the authority to set or modify deadlines given to authors and reviewers. TEs should consult with LEs if a deadline is to be reduced.

Since the TE is in a position between the author and reviewer, the TE should facilitate the peer review process by striving for politeness, dignity, and common sense.  Many times, reviewers will provide harsh comments, personal criticism, or subjective content. TEs should filter discussion from reviewers. TEs have a responsibility to take recommendations from reviewers and distill them into specific comments for authors to improve the manuscript. TEs should also evaluate author responses and manuscript revisions to address previous concerns or deficiencies. A TE must form his/her own opinion about a manuscript, weighing comments and recommendations from reviewers and responses by authors. A TE must be satisfied that the level of revisions is sufficient before making a decision.

Policy for editors performing reviews