JOURNALS

Review Procedures

Standard Procedures

What follows is an overview of the standard review procedures followed for all SIAM journals. Journal-specific procedures for your journal are also available.

Manuscript Submissions

The review process for submissions to SIAM journals generally originates at the SIAM office. Authors should send electronic submissions. Instructions for authors are available. In brief, they submit a PDF file of their manuscript and a cover letter through the web-based Journal Submission and Tracking System.

The SIAM office processes the submission: all files are checked for completeness and functionality, a hard copy file is created, and a manuscript tracking number is assigned. The status of the paper at this point is "unrouted" (UN).

Once the processing of the submission is complete, it moves to the journal's editor-in-chief. The EIC briefly reviews each submission to determine whether it is appropriate for the journal and, if so, which member of the editorial board (Associate Editor or AE) will review the paper. In making this decision, the EIC takes into account the areas of expertise and current workloads of the AEs, as well as possible conflicts of interest.

Routing and Refereeing

If deemed worthy of review, a submission is routed to the assigned editor, who will supervise the refereeing process. If the editor does not feel comfortable handling the paper, for whatever reason, the SIAM office and the EIC should be notified immediately.

SIAM assigns each manuscript a due date. Such deadlines are inherently arbitrary, and both authors and the SIAM office understand that it will not always be possible for editors to meet these deadlines. However, editors must keep SIAM informed of any situation that may prevent them from reviewing papers in a timely fashion. Regular communication among editors, the SIAM office, and the author is necessary for maintaining a good relationship between SIAM and the community it serves.

Once the manuscript assignment is accepted by the AE, the status of the paper is "in review." Normally, editors seek the advice of at least two referees, but in some cases, it will be necessary to make an evaluation based on only one report and a report of the editor's own making. This can also be done if the editor feels comfortable enough with the subject matter of the paper to write a report her/himself. An editor may also feel free to reject a paper that is obviously inappropriate for the journal without obtaining any referee reports; however, it is important to note that this should be done early in the reviewing process to avoid having authors think that a paper was ignored for a long period of time before the decision was made. In addition, the editor should clearly describe the reason(s) for rejection to the author. To accept a paper two referee reports are needed; again, one of these reports can be written by the AE him/herself.

When sending a paper to referees for review, the editor should take care to ascertain that the referee completes the review within the timeframe outlined. The web-based system keeps track of the timetable when reports are due and makes it easy to send prompts, if necessary. This will help prevent a situation in which the editor waits for a referee report that will never arrive. Note: For SIADS and MMS papers the SIAM office communicates with the referees, and acts as liaison between the editor and the referees.

Correspondence with Authors

There are three different methods for handling contact between editors and authors. The decision as to which method is used for a given journal is made by the individual EIC, in cooperation with the Vice President for Publications and the SIAM office. The three divisions of labor are:

  1. The individual editors make final decisions about papers they are handling. These editors usually handle the correspondence themselves. The AE bases the decision on the reports of the referees. This is by far the most common method among SIAM journals. SIADS, SIAP, SICOMP, SIDMA, SIMAX, SINUM, SIOPT, SIREV, SISC, and MMS currently operate under this method.

    Of course, with this method it is important to keep in mind that, in delicate situations in which the editor prefers to remain anonymous the editor can request that the EIC handle the correspondence without mentioning the review editor's name.
  2. The EIC is responsible for making all final decisions. In this case, the editor obtains referee reports, writes a recommendation based on these reports, and forwards the reports and recommendation to the EIC. The EIC makes the decision and the author is informed. Currently, SIMA functions this way.
  3. The Editorial Board contains both Corresponding Editors and Associate Editors. A manuscript is assigned to both a corresponding and an associate editor. The AE obtains referee reports, writes a recommendation based on these reports, and forwards the report and recommendation to the CE. The CE makes the final decision. SICON operates this way.

Manuscript Status Designations

The review process can be simple or complicated; it can involve many status changes or just one. A list of status designations for SIAM manuscripts in review appears below.

Note on the Quality of Writing in Accepted Papers: If an editor plans to accept a paper, (s)he should take care to note whether it will need extensive copy editing for grammar, spelling, and clarity of expression, etc. If the paper does need a great deal of editing, it will help to bring this fact to the attention of the SIAM office. Also, bear in mind that, although SIAM copy editors can correct grammatical errors, they cannot make corrections that may affect the mathematical meaning of the text; so any parts of the text that are poorly written or ambiguous and involve mathematics should be edited by the author under the guidance of the Review Editor before the paper is accepted and sent to SIAM.

Flagged Manuscripts

As mentioned above, SIAM assigns a target due date for each manuscript submitted, generally four months into the future. However, for most journals, manuscripts are considered "flagged" (in review for too long) when they've been in their current review cycle for six months. SIAM runs separate reports on flagged manuscripts for each journal and sends them to Editorial Board members on a regular basis and tracks these manuscripts more closely than other manuscripts. To ensure that we provide authors with timely reviews of their papers, editors are periodically reminded that the reviews for flagged papers are overdue and need to be completed as soon as possible.

Revision Policy

For most journals, authors are expected to complete revisions within six months. (SIMA has a firm policy of three months for revisions. MMS asks for revisions in six weeks. ) When a paper is listed as having been in revision beyond the journal's deadline, the SIAM office will first contact the editor of the paper to make sure (s)he has not heard from the author regarding the revision. If the editor has not heard from the author and no revision has been submitted, the author is contacted in an effort to determine whether (s)he plans to revise the paper. If the author does not plan to revise, the file for the paper is closed; if the author does plan to revise, the file is updated accordingly and the author is asked to provide some indication of when (s)he hopes to complete the revisions.

SIAM tries to be accommodating with its revision policy. Files are not automatically closed if SIAM doesn't receive revisions within six months. In addition, authors are usually given as much time as needed to finish their revisions. Files are closed only if the author is not responsive to inquiries about the paper or if the author says (s)he does not plan to revise the paper. It should also be noted, however, that a closed file can be re-opened if necessary; that is, it can be re-opened if the author unexpectedly sends in a revision.

Exceptions and Unusual Situations

There are, of course, times when it is not possible to follow standard procedures. Some of these follow. When situations arise that are not covered here, the general rule is to keep all parties in the loop. The individual editors, the Editor-in-Chief, the SIAM office, and the author should be kept informed of any and all situations that prevent standard procedures from being followed.

Direct Submissions to AEs or EICs
Occasionally, authors e-mail submissions directly to an Editorial Board member.

Submission to AE. Editors are encouraged to solicit good papers for their journals. However, when an author submits a manuscript directly to an AE, the EIC still makes the final decision on who should handle the review. Thus the AE who received the direct submission will not necessarily be assigned to review it. Therefore, all direct submissions to editors should be forwarded to the SIAM office to be processed and then to move to the EIC in the normal way. The paper will be assigned to an editor and routed, as usual.

Submission to EIC. The EIC can e-mail the manuscript file and a copy of the cover letter to the SIAM office, where it will be entered into the tracking system. An acknowledgment then goes out to the author, as usual, once the submission is in the system.

Transfers
Sometimes a transfer from one SIAM journal to another may be considered. A transfer should occur only if a paper of obviously high quality that is clearly appropriate for one SIAM journal is submitted to a different SIAM journal, for which it is inappropriate.

Only an EIC can effect a transfer. If a paper is already in review when it is decided that another SIAM journal would be more appropriate (e.g., a referee suggests it), the reviewing editor should bring the matter to the EIC's attention. The EIC will decide, with the reviewing editor's advice, whether or not to initiate the transfer. If it is decided that a transfer would be appropriate, the EIC (not the reviewing editor) will follow through.

Please note the following important information regarding transfers.

  1. All EICs reserve the right to turn down transfers suggested by other EICs.
  2. Transferred papers are not guaranteed acceptance. All papers, whether transfers or new submissions, are subject to the same refereeing process.
  3. The best time for a paper to be transferred is before it is assigned to a reviewing editor. Papers that are inappropriate for the journal to which they have been submitted should be either rejected or transferred as soon as possible, in fairness to the authors.
  4. A paper that is inappropriate for the journal to which it has been submitted should simply be rejected unless the EIC believes that it would make a significant contribution to another SIAM journal.
  5. A transfer must be fully approved by both EICs before the author(s) is asked for approval. This will prevent a situation in which an author believes that her/his paper is being transferred before the transfer is actually approved.
  6. If a transfer is approved by all parties, the author must be made fully aware of the fact that the transfer does not guarantee acceptance of the paper in the new journal.
In those cases in which an EIC believes that a paper submitted to his/her journal would be a good match for another SIAM journal, that EIC ("EIC1") should contact the EIC of the other journal ("EIC2") to discuss the paper. (The SIAM office can handle this correspondence if either EIC prefers.) Please inform the SIAM office if you are considering a transfer.

If EIC2 agrees that the paper is worth reviewing in her/his journal, then EIC1 should contact the author for approval, explaining why the transfer is appropriate. If the author agrees to the transfer, (s)he should e-mail the SIAM office stating this.

Though, ideally, transfers are initiated before a paper has been assigned to a reviewing editor and before referees have been consulted, if referee reports have been obtained they should also be sent to EIC2. If EIC2 agrees to the transfer, (s)he will decide whether more referees should be consulted or not. The existence of positive referee reports does not preclude EIC2 from deciding to have the paper fully reviewed by a member of his/her journal's editorial board.

Once both EIC2 and the author have approved the transfer and the SIAM office has received the author's message, the SIAM office will make the necessary changes in the tracking system. The status of the paper in the journal to which it was originally submitted is "rejected."

Papers Written by Editors-in-Chief and Editors
Any paper submitted to a SIAM journal that is co-authored by that journal's Editor-in-Chief must be handled by the Vice President for Publications. These papers will not appear on the journal's monthly reports. The Vice President for Publications acts as Editor-in-Chief for the paper and assigns the paper for review following established procedures for the journal to which the paper was submitted. For journals in which individual editors Usually act as corresponding editors, this can remain the case with EIC-authored papers. However, the editor will be informed that the Vice President for Publications can handle correspondence with the author if the editor prefers to remain anonymous.

Any paper written by a SIAM Editor-in-Chief but submitted to another SIAM journal will be handled by the journal's Editor-in-Chief, as usual. However, when the paper is routed to an editor, the SIAM office will inform the editor that the Editor-in-Chief can handle correspondence with the author, if the editor prefers to remain anonymous. Further, the journal EIC has the option to ask the Vice President for Publications to handle correspondence.

Papers written by a member of the journal's editorial board should be handled by the EIC. If this is not possible, then the EIC should closely monitor the review.

The Appeals Process

Occasionally, an author will challenge a decision made by a journal's reviewing editor or Editor-in-Chief. Such challenges, not surprisingly, usually occur upon rejection of a paper. Should an EIC receive such a challenge from an author, the first step is to investigate thoroughly the paper's review. Is the author's complaint valid? The matter should be discussed with the AE and/or CE and, perhaps, with the referees. Once it has been determined whether the review was fair and the recommendation and final decision correct, the EIC will respond to the author directly. Should the author continue to disagree with the decision, the author should be referred to the Vice President for Publications, who is the final arbiter in such cases.

Contact Us · Site Map · Join SIAM · My Account