Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the IEEE Transactions. Per your agreement with the Associate Editor, you are asked to complete the review within six weeks of receipt of the manuscript. (NOTE: if you are reviewing a paper in Transactions on Computational Imaging, you are asked to complete your review in four weeks.) For the review of revised manuscripts, reviewers are asked to complete their reviews within three weeks. Please note, the peer review cycle for Signal Processing Letters is three weeks. Reminders will be sent from the Publications Office in pursuit of these deadlines.
Any questions you may have about this manuscript or the review process should be directed to the Associate Editor. Questions about accessing ScholarOne Manuscripts should be directed to the journal’s coordinator. Please refer to the manuscript ID number in all correspondence with the Associate Editor or the Signal Processing Society Publications Office.
Please utilize the ScholarOne Manuscripts system to submit your review. Associate Editors cannot enter the reviews for you. Signal Processing Society operates on a “single-blind” reviewing system, in which the identity of every reviewer is carefully protected. However, you must ensure that there is no identifying information in the properties of any documents that you upload.
There are two criteria necessary for a recommendation of acceptance for publication: NOVELTY (new or innovative methods or approaches to a problem of engineering, science, or mathematics) and APPROPRIATENESS (a complete, well-written manuscript that falls within the scope of the transactions to which it was submitted).
Conference to Journal Papers.
It is acceptable for conference papers to be used as the basis for a more fully developed journal publication. However, authors are required to cite their related prior work, either in the introduction or in a footnote. The papers cannot be identical, and the journal paper should be justified by a clearly identifiable benefit that its publication offers to the research community beyond the already published conference paper. For example, the journal paper may include additional analysis, novel algorithmic enhancements, added theoretical work, completeness of exposition, extensive experimental validation, etc. The added benefits of the journal paper must either be apparent from a reading of the introduction or abstract, or should be clearly and concisely explained in a separate document that accompanies the submission.
Please score the manuscript according to the following codes:
When submitting comments alongside the scoresheet, the review should consist of the following:
The comments should be detailed enough to help the author amend the manuscript and prepare it for publication, or help the authors understand why the manuscript is considered unacceptable for publication at this time. Your comments are also important to the Associate Editor because reviewers frequently disagree in their assessment and detailed comments help the Associate Editor to make a decision.
In completing this and all sections of the form, avoid personal remarks, even if you may have formed some strong negative opinions about the manuscript. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. If you have comments that you do not think should be read by the author, there is a separate field on the score sheet where you can enter confidential comments to the Associate Editor.
Remember that manuscripts should not grow appreciably and, when appropriate, probably should contract a bit. Authors should not state the obvious in their papers, but only refer to established research by providing a reference. The desirable published manuscript length for regular papers is 10 pages; for the Transactions on Multimedia the published manuscript length is 8 pages; and the Signal Processing Letters the manuscript length is 4 pages/. So, please help the author identify, through your review, how the paper can be improved to save space while still making full scientific disclosure.
In some cases, you may have the opportunity to review a paper that makes a particularly valuable contribution. If you think that the manuscript is award-quality, please complete the appropriate section. It is very helpful to us in identifying such papers.
In very rare cases, you may find that you suspect author misconduct (including plagiarism or duplicate submission) associated with the paper that you are reviewing. If so, you should contact the Associate Editor handling the paper immediately and be prepared to provide documentation explaining the allegations. All such cases are handled confidentially and should not be discussed with anyone other than the Associate Editor.
Reviews should provide objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review and you should notify the Associate Editor.
Examples of conflicts of interest are:
A manuscript should only cite papers that are directly related to the topics covered in the manuscript and the authors should explain how each paper relates to the manuscript. Listing several papers without such explanations is unacceptable. Information contained in a manuscript under review is confidential. For more information, please see the IEEE PSPB Manual: 8.2.1 Publications Principles.
Once again, thank you for serving as a reviewer for the Transactions of the IEEE Signal Processing Society and for your timely response. Your participation invaluable to the peer review process.