Instructions to AEs

Thank you for volunteering as an Associate Editor (AE) of IEEE-TMI! To assist you in carrying out your AE duties, this document provides the procedures and rules that you need to follow. As a distinguished and highly selective journal, TMI’s success depends on your dedication, expertise, and careful management of each manuscript assigned to you.

1. Get Ready

To fulfill your role as an Associate Editor for TMI effectively, you need to:

2. Manage Manuscript Review

You are responsible for overseeing the review process of manuscripts assigned to you. Upon receiving a manuscript, you are expected to read the cover letter and the manuscript within 3 days, take appropriate actions to carry out the scientific review of the manuscript.

2.1. Original Submissions

Original submissions refer to new submissions that have not been previously submitted or reviewed on ScholarOne.

2.1.1. Request Reassignment

Contact the Managing Editors to request reassignment of the manuscript if you have any concerns about a potential conflict of interest or feel that the topic of the manuscript is outside of your area of expertise. It is important to ensure that you can focus on evaluating the quality of the research work and make unbiased decisions.

2.1.2. Recommend Immediate-Reject

Recommend “Immediate Reject” without pursuing a full review process if you feel the manuscript is 1) out of the scope of TMI, 2) does not meet TMI’s quality standards, 3) lacks novelty, or 4) is deemed as just “good” instead of “exceptional” or “excellent.”

2.1.2.1 To Recommend an Immediate Reject

Follow these steps:

  1. Change the Reviews required to make decision from “4” to “0”.
  2. Click the Save button.
  3. The Make Recommendation tab will appear. Click on it.
  4. Select the Immediate Reject option.
  5. Write a paragraph in the Comments to the Author section summarizing the reasons for your recommendation. If you make constructive suggestions, be clear on whether a resubmission—with the suggested changes incorporated—is eligible for a full review at TMI.

2.1.2.2 Ask a 2nd AE’s Opinion

If you intend to recommend an “Immediate Reject” but are not totally certain, you may request to have a second AE’s opinion. In this case:

  1. Repeat the Immediate Reject steps 1–4 above.
  2. Write your comments/rationale in the Confidential Comments to the Editor.
  3. Click Submit.
  4. Click ADM: Kruger, Uwe or ADM: Shan, Hongming to send an email to the Managing Editor (ME) about your request for a second AE’s opinion. If you use your regular email App, please include the manuscript ID in your email.

The EiC/ME will assign the manuscript to a second AE. The second AE may:

  • Agree with the first AE’s recommendation. Action: Make a recommendation that may include the first AE’s comments within 7 days of the assignment.
  • Arrive at a different conclusion than the first AE. Action: Proceed to manage the full review of the manuscript.

Regardless of which path the 2nd AE takes, he/she will inform (email) the first AE of his/her intention, as a collegial information exchange. The first AE’s name is visible on the right-hand side of the Make Recommendation screen. The two AEs are encouraged to discuss the manuscript to reach a recommendation.

If a manuscript receives an “Immediate Reject” recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief will use the comments provided by the AEs verbatim (unless you indicate otherwise) or paraphrase them in the decision letter to the author. The Associate Editors will not be identified in the decision letter nor in the submission records on ScholarOne Manuscripts. The Immediate Reject decision letter typically reads:

“The Editorial Board has carefully considered the information presented in your manuscript and has decided not to send it out for external peer review. Our consensus is that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.”

It is followed by “Comments from the Editorial Board” without your name.

Here are a few examples of comments that could be provided to authors:

Example #1:
“The authors present techniques for delineating and segmenting tumours in KV x-ray images. The paper is very well written and all decisions, in design, are well justified. However, from a methodological novelty perspective, the paper is lacking (to the level of a TMI paper) and is closer to an application of known techniques in DL in yet another, but very interesting, imaging modality. As TMI reviewers do typically look for methodological novelty and contribution to the broader area of medical image analysis, the editorial board has decided to expedite the review process for the benefit of the authors by providing a more immediate decision.”

Example #2:
“The authors propose a simple CNN for the detection and monitoring of thermal lesions using US RF backscattered from ablated regions. Unfortunately, the paper lacks novelty in methodology and applies a very simple CNN to a medical application. Therefore, it is more suitable for applied medical imaging or clinical journals not for TMI where the novelty of the approach is an important factor.”

Example #3:
“The manuscript is on the evaluation and optimization of an improved dictionary search method for MRF. As TMI publishes works with significant methodological novelty and contribution, the authors are recommended to submit the manuscript to an MRI specific journal such as Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.”

Example #4:
“While your work is interesting and has merit, it is also somewhat incremental in nature. We have the following track record of your works on closely related subjects to your submission.

The MMC framework for EIT was published in IEEE TMI in 2019:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8721167

EIT imaging using B-spline level sets was also published in IEEE TMI in 2019:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8941074

The use of multiphase conductivity imaging with EIT using the B-spline level set method was published in IEEE Trans on Instrumentation and Measurements earlier in 2020:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9127902

Your submitted work seems to be basically the same approach, replacing level sets with MMC. This is not sufficient innovation for IEEE TMI.

EIT shape reconstruction using Boolean operators was published in IEEE TMI in 2020:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9046034

and Fourier representations, also in 2020:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9220135

Please be mindful that the journal cannot accept submissions that are essentially modifications of the same idea. Novelty drives us forward, and innovation is key to the journal’s high ranking.”

In the past, AEs have appreciated the option of an Immediate Reject instead of requesting reviews for a manuscript that is unlikely to be accepted after a full review. This approach aims to reduce reviewer fatigue and shorten the time to the first decision, allowing authors to quickly submit to another journal. The Immediate Reject rate for submissions in 2022 was 34%.

2.1.3. Submission Extended from a Conference Proceeding Paper

For papers extended from conference proceedings, we demand a comprehensive and significant enhancement of the manuscript content (rigor, clarity, and completeness) including figures. There is no need for additional methodology novelty compared to the conference paper.

2.1.4. Poor English

If a manuscript has poor English that prevents the assessment of the merit of the submission, you may recommend “Immediate Reject” while indicating in your comment that the authors must use a professional English editing and proofreading agency and provide copies of the certificate of the service and the credentials of the agency should they wish to resubmit. Once the authors have resubmitted the paper along with proof of English editing service, the paper will be reassigned to you for further review.

2.1.5. Carry out a Full-Review

2.1.5.1. Reviewer Selection

If you decide to proceed with the full review process, please make every effort to manage and monitor each stage of the review process promptly. The ranking of TMI is partially dependent on turn-around time, so it is essential to keep the review process moving efficiently.

2.1.5.2. Invite 4 Reviewers Within 3 Days

As an AE, you are required to select and invite at least four reviewers within three days of being assigned a manuscript. We strongly recommend that you select more than four reviewers, as it is likely that some will decline the invitation. If less than four reviewers are invited after three days, reviewer selection will be considered past due. You will receive reminder emails after 5 and 10 days past due. Please try to avoid selecting reviewers who were trained in the same research group or from regions of proximity. This will help ensure objectivity and minimize potential conflicts of interest during the review process.

Here is an explanation of the related terms on your Associate Editor Dashboard:

  • Awaiting Reviewer Selection: Less than 4 reviewers have been selected for a manuscript.
  • Awaiting Reviewer Invitation: At least 4 reviewers have been selected, but less than 4 have been invited.
  • Awaiting Reviewer Assignment: At least 4 reviewers have been invited, but less than 4 have agreed to review.

2.1.5.3. Opposed Reviewers by Authors

As the managing AE, it is your responsibility to select qualified reviewers to conduct a fair and unbiased review. While you may take the authors’ oppositions of reviewers into consideration, you are not obligated to follow them. The recommended practice is to avoid using reviewers opposed by the authors and to be cautious about possible conflicts of interest in using reviewers.

In rare cases, we may receive complaints about unfair or unethical practices in the peer-review process. If you receive such complaints, please report them immediately to the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor for further investigation.

2.1.5.4. Reviewer Account Issues

If you encounter difficulty inviting a reviewer due to duplicate accounts in the ScholarOne system, please report the issue to the Editorial Office. This will allow the office to merge the duplicate accounts, resolving the issue and enabling you to successfully invite the reviewer to participate in the review process.

2.1.5.5. Select Reviewers Using ScholarOne’s Built-in Functions

When using the Reviewer Locator Results from the Web of Science, it is important to note that the suggested reviewers may or may not have highly relevant expertise to the submitted manuscript (e.g., an insignificant co-author of a relevant publication). Please check each suggested reviewer’s expertise carefully (using Google Scholar or their personal webpage) before inviting them to review, especially if the suggested reviewer has never reviewed any TMI manuscripts before.

The Quick Search feature allows you to add a potential reviewer for the manuscript quickly. If you know of anyone who could be a suitable reviewer for the manuscript, this feature can save time in the selection process.

The Auto-Suggest feature searches for reviewers with the selected manuscript keywords. These keywords are TMI-specific keywords chosen by the author during submission. This function can be helpful in identifying reviewers with the appropriate expertise for the manuscript.

2.1.5.6. Check a Reviewer’s Credentials

Once you have identified a potential reviewer with the appropriate expertise, it is important to check their review history. For each search result, you will see the reviewer’s name, specialty keywords, institution, roles, number of papers currently under review, number of papers reviewed in the past 12 months, number of days since the last review, average R-score (reviewer-score), and average M-score (manuscript-score, which is not activated in TMI at this time). The average R-score represents the combined score for the timely review and quality of the review. A high average R-score (with 3.00 being the highest value) suggests a highly responsible reviewer. By checking a potential reviewer’s review history, you can get an idea of their reliability, promptness, and the quality of their reviews. This information can help you select the best reviewers for a manuscript and ensure a high-quality review process.

Please also note that you are expected to grade a reviewer’s review when it is returned to you (see Section 2.1.6 for instructions).

For some reviewers, there are flags next to their names, indicating certain characteristics or potential issues. Here are the definitions of the flags that may appear next to a reviewer’s name:

  • Review Turn-around <= 25 days: Green flag
  • Review Turn-around >= 50 days: Black flag
  • Review accurate & detailed: Blue flag
  • Review brief, irrelevant, biased: Grey flag
  • Review >=10 TMI papers: Yellow flag
  • Review <=3 TMI papers: White flag
  • Record of unethical incidents: Red flag

Flags indicating the record of a reviewer or an author.

It is important to consider these flags when selecting reviewers and to use your judgment in deciding whether to invite a particular reviewer based on the flag and the overall review history.

Editorial Board members (EiC, Managing Editor, and AEs) are authorized to tag flags to a reviewer based on their review history.

In addition to the flags that may appear next to a reviewer’s name, you can also access a Reviewer History Analysis by clicking on the magnifier-glass icon next to a reviewer’s name. The Reviewer History Analysis provides additional information about the reviewer’s review history with the journal, including the number of manuscripts the reviewer has declined and agreed to review to date (click “Show All” for more details), as well as the title, authors, turn-around time, and R-score for each manuscript they have reviewed. The information is usually very helpful in determining whether a particular reviewer is a good fit for the manuscript.

It is important to avoid selecting reviewers with very long turn-around times, biased reviews, or who have been declining many review invitations. Inexperienced reviewers should also be selected with caution, and their lack of experience should be taken into consideration when making a recommendation. It is important to prioritize those who have a track record of providing timely and high-quality reviews.

A red flag tagged to a user account indicates the person has at least one incidence of violating the policies of TMI, such as plagiarism or behavior undermining the integrity of the peer-review process. A red flag disqualifies anyone from being a TMI reviewer.

2.1.5.7. Follow Up with Reviewers

As an AE, it is important to ensure that assigned reviewers submit their reviews in a timely manner and to take appropriate action when necessary to ensure the completion of the review process. Assigned Reviewers have 3 weeks to submit their reviews, and automatic reminders are sent to each reviewer through the ScholarOne system just prior to the 3-week deadline and periodically afterward. A total of five reminders are sent, including reminders at 7 and 2 days before the due date, and 5, 10, and 15 days after the due date. The 10 and 15-day overdue reminders are sent out in your name, and you are copied on these two emails.

After receiving the 15-day overdue reminder, the AE should send a personal email to the reviewer to inquire about the status of the review.

An email example to a reviewer:

Dear John,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on the review that you agreed to complete for this manuscript.
As you know, we are still awaiting your review, and we currently do not have enough reviews to make a decision on this manuscript. I understand that you may have other commitments, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know when you anticipate being able to complete your review.
Your expert opinion is critical to the success of the review process, and we value your contributions to the journal. If you are unable to complete the review, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can find a replacement reviewer.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,

If there is still no response, the AE should take immediate actions such as un-assigning the reviewer, inviting a new reviewer for a quick review, or making a recommendation based on the available reviews.

In order to make a decision on a manuscript, there must be at least 3, but preferably 4, reviews. The AE should strive to obtain at least 3 reviews in a reasonable amount of time.

2.1.5.8. Grant Due-date Extensions

Reviewers may request an extension of the due date for submitting their reviews. Generally, requests for extensions of up to two or even three weeks should be granted without question. However, for longer requests or repeated requests, it is important to consider the following factors:

  • Are there already adequate reviews in agreement to make a recommendation?
  • Is there already a strong review that recommends rejection, making it unlikely for the paper to receive a positive decision?
  • Has the review length passed the 60-day mark?

If any of these factors apply, it may be appropriate to take action to move the review process forward. This could include un-assigning the reviewer and finding a replacement, or making a recommendation based on the available reviews.

2.1.5.9. Rescind Unqualified Reviews

As an AE, it is important to ensure that reviews submitted by reviewers meet TMI’s expectations. Reviewers are expected to provide a critical assessment of the submitted work in terms of novelty of science and methodology, quality of the technical content, impact to the field, clarity of writing, and relevance to medical imaging (see TMI’s key criteria for publication). Additionally, the comments should be constructive and specific, use professional etiquette, and be free of offensive expressions.

If a substandard review is identified, it is the AE’s responsibility to rescind the review and explain to the reviewer TMI’s expectations on reviews. The reviewer may be offered a chance to submit a new review. It is important to assess the quality of reviews submitted and ensure that they meet TMI’s standards before making a recommendation. All reviews that remain on the system when a recommendation is made will be included in the decision letter to the authors.

2.1.5.10. Grade Reviewers

You are expected to grade each review in terms of its timeliness and quality using the grading form shown in the following figure, which can be found at the end of each “view review” page, below the Publons recognition question. The AE is expected to select one score in timeliness:

  1. Review was on time: The review was returned by the agreed due date, which is 3 weeks, if applicable, plus the approved extension from the day the reviewer responded to the review invitation.

  2. Review was slightly delayed: The review was submitted less than 7 days after the agreed review due date.

  3. Review was severely delayed: The review was submitted more than 14 days after the agreed review due date.

Review evaluation form. The AE is to select one score in each category. Review was on time means the review was returned by the agreed due date, which is 3 weeks, if applicable, plus the approved extension from the day the reviewer responded to the review-invitation. Review was slightly delayed means the review was submitted less than 7 days after the agreed review due date.

Quality of review: The AE is expected to select one score in quality assessment. The quality of the review is evaluated based on the reviewer’s comments, the thoroughness of the review, and the quality of the recommendations.

Although it is not mandatory, grading reviews can help you and other AEs in future reviewer selection. If you consistently notice that a reviewer provides high-quality and timely reviews, causes delays in reviews, or submits very short, irrelevant, or biased reviews, you are encouraged to use the appropriately colored flags (as mentioned in section 2.1.4.6) to tag the reviewer.

2.1.6. Make Recommendations

You are responsible for evaluating the reviews and making a recommendation based on your assessment of the quality and fairness of the opinions. If you feel that a reviewer’s comments are biased, incorrect, or irrelevant, you can choose to disregard (rescind) them and focus on the reviews that provide valuable feedback on the manuscript. Ultimately, the decision is yours to make based on your evaluation of the reviews and your own expertise in the field.

It is better to reject a manuscript early on if the reviewers lack enthusiasm or there is little chance of significant improvement even with major revisions. This can save everyone involved a lot of time and effort, and allow the authors to submit their work to a more suitable journal sooner.

Having at least 4 reviews can help identify invalid comments and allow for fair recommendations. While clinical relevance is of high importance, manuscripts with high technical innovation, even without comprehensive clinical validation, can still be considered for publication in TMI. For example, review comments related to a lack of validation in a large clinical population may not be relevant when making a recommendation.

2.1.6.1. Reject Unethical Submissions

Submissions that violate TMI policies, such as plagiarism or submission to other journals during the peer-review process, will be reported to the editorial office and recommended for rejection immediately.

2.1.6.2. With 4 or More Reviews

To maintain the high quality of TMI, it is highly recommended to base your decision on at least four reviews. In the Comments to Authors section, please provide a summary of the rationale for your recommendation without revealing the decision. Once all reviews received, you are expected to recommend one of the following decisions:

2.1.6.2.1. Accept

The manuscript is accepted without changes. You don’t need to include any comments as they are not sent to the authors.

2.1.6.2.2. Accept with Minor Revision

The manuscript needs some revisions, which are not significant enough to require another round of reviews. Please summarize the key issues to be addressed in order for the resubmission to be considered. As said in the Decision Letter, “… if the revisions performed are not satisfactory, the paper may still be rejected.”

2.1.6.2.3. Reject/Resubmit with Major Revision

The manuscript requires significant revisions, which are likely to require another round of reviews. Please provide a summary of the key issues to be addressed in order for the resubmission to be considered. It is important to note that TMI only allows one resubmission of the revised manuscript, meaning that the revised paper must either be accepted or rejected with no further consideration). Therefore, please only make this recommendation if you believe all the major concerns can be addressed in one revision. An example of Comments to the Author:

“This paper was reviewed by three experts, who all expressed enthusiasm for the ideas presented in this paper. However, the referees also raised substantive concerns about technical correctness and clarity, and also felt that the results were not extensive or convincing enough to support the papers’ claims. Addressing these concerns will likely require a substantial amount of effort, although would also substantially improve the match between this paper and TMI.”

We trust your judgment and expertise when it comes to evaluating reviews and making decisions. If you can look at all reviews and the paper and let us know the most reasonable views, we would benefit from your analysis in making a decision. In cases where there are conflicting opinions among the reviewers, we rely on your interpretation to make a fair and informed decision. We encourage you to thoroughly review all of the comments and feedback from the reviewers, and to provide your own analysis to help us reach a decision.

If you encounter fundamental questions about the paper, such as unclear text or incomplete evaluation of results, and the manuscript lacks innovation, we value your input and would like to hear your thoughts. On the other hand, if you believe that the paper is overall strong, innovative, and likely to be of high interest to readers, but there are a few important issues that need to be clarified, we also appreciate your insight in making a recommendation.

2.1.6.2.4. Reject without Further Consideration

This recommendation can be made when there are significant flaws in the methodology, technical content, or relevance to medical imaging, and at least one reviewer has serious concerns and recommends rejection. In such cases, the AE should carefully consider the concerns and assess if they are valid before making the recommendation. This decision means that the manuscript will not be reconsidered for publication in TMI, even if resubmitted with all issues addressed. An example of Comments to the Author:

“Although some improvement was noted in the resubmitted manuscript, the reviewers feel that the novelty of the work compared to SDL is not significant enough, and there is not enough experimental support to show that this method is superior to constrained ICA, which means further consideration is not justified. Please refer to the reviewers’ detailed discussions regarding these concerns. However, one reviewer pointed out that some of the experiments regarding structural/functional and model sparsity have potential, and the authors might want to explore this aspect in future research. For the method to be justified in practice, it needs to demonstrate significant improvement in more comprehensive experiments with more realistic and challenging stimuli. Given the policy of only allowing a single major revision and the substantial amount of work still required based on the reviewers’ critiques, it is not possible to recommend further consideration of this article in this journal.”

2.1.6.2.5. Reject/Submit to Another Journal

Please recommend a manuscript to other journals only when you have specific journals in mind that you think would be a good fit for the paper. An example of Comments to the Author:

“This paper was evaluated by three experts. Unfortunately, the overall consensus seems to be that the paper may not have enough technical innovation or justification for this journal. All of the reviewers provided comments that are hopefully useful to you as you decide how to move forward with this work. Two of the reviewers specifically suggested that the paper might be better suited to an application-oriented journal like MRM instead.”

2.1.6.3. With 3 Reviews

If you have only received 3 reviews for a manuscript and the review process is delayed, you should consider taking one of the following actions.

  1. If all the reviews are in agreement and you agree with the reviewers’ assessment, you can set the number of required reviewers to 3 and make your recommendation.

  2. If the 3 reviews are not entirely consistent, you can choose from the following options:

    a. Assign yourself as a reviewer and submit a quick review (preferably within a couple of days) if you are familiar with the topic.

    b. Adjudicate the difference of opinions and report your interpretation. In general, if at least one reviewer has serious concerns and recommends to reject, and you consider the concerns to be valid, you should recommend rejection. Read the reviews and evaluate which one is the most reasonable. Your analysis would benefit us in making a decision. If the paper has little to offer in terms of innovation and there remain fundamental questions because of unclear text or incomplete evaluation of results, we would like to hear that. But if you think the paper is overall strong, innovative, and likely to be of high reader interest, but there remain a few important things to be clarified, we would like to hear that too.

    c. Find another reviewer who could provide a quick review (preferably within a week), if you are unfamiliar with the topic.

2.1.6.4. With 2 Reviews

It is recommended to avoid making recommendations based on only two reviews and to invite more (5+) reviewers at the outset to prevent this situation.

However, if the review process is seriously delayed and there are only two reviews for a manuscript after the final reminder, the following actions can be taken:

  1. If the two reviews are highly consistent, a recommendation can be made;

  2. If the topic is in your specialty area, you can step in as the 3rd reviewer. Otherwise, a new reviewer who can provide a fast review should be invited;

  3. If the situation persists, contact the EiC and Editorial Office for further guidance.

2.2. Resubmissions or Appeals after “Immediate Reject” or “Reject”

Authors are allowed – but must be upfront to disclose the Immediate Reject or Reject history – to submit a paper or appeal related to the rejected one. They must provide a cover letter detailing the rationale for requesting a new round of review or that the new submission is essentially a completely new paper. Resubmissions without disclosure will be returned without review, and the authors will receive a warning.

Resubmissions or Appeals of this nature use “Administrative Communication” as Manuscript Type, and are flagged with an orange square icon.

The instructions are organized by your role in the previous decision.

2.2.1 Immediate Reject: You, the Original Managing AE, Provided Constructive Comments for a Potential Resubmission

We assigned the paper to you because you managed the last submission, and provided constructive comments for a resubmission.

Please treat this as a new submission with additional information. The previous version of this paper received an Immediate Reject decision. This new submission must fully address the essential critiques brought up in the last review – summarized in the authors’ Cover Letter – to qualify for a full review. We hope you will make an assessment within 10 days.

If you reach the conclusion of rejecting the appeal (recommendation option: Reject Appeal), please follow the steps as those for an Immediate Reject.

If you reach the conclusion of approving the resubmission, you may start the steps for carrying out a full review or email the Managing Editor your decision including your preference of having another AE to manage this paper (this will preserve the anonymity of the earlier decision).

2.2.2 Reject: You Were the Original Managing AE

The authors request resubmitting the paper as a new original submission. Both the rejection comments and the authors’ rebuttals are included in the Cover Letter. The records of the rejected submission are accessible under the Manuscript Information tab, in the Companion Papers section. We hope you, the original AE, will assess the validity of the request within 10 days.

For us to accept it for review, you need to be convinced that the new submission is essentially a completely new paper.

If you reach the conclusion of rejecting the appeal (recommendation option: Reject Appeal), please follow the steps as those for an Immediate Reject.

If you reach the conclusion of approving the appeal, please follow the same steps for carrying out a full review.

2.2.3 Immediate-Reject or Reject: You, as a New Managing AE

This submission is an appeal to an Immediate-Reject or Reject decision. Both the rejection comments and the authors’ rebuttals are included in the Cover Letter. The records of the rejected submission are accessible under the Manuscript Information tab, in the Companion Papers section. We hope you, as a second AE, will assess the validity of the appeal within 10 days.

If you reach the conclusion of rejecting the appeal (recommendation option: Reject Appeal), please follow the steps as those for an Immediate Reject.

If you reach the conclusion of approving the appeal, please follow the same steps for carrying out a full review.

2.3. Resubmissions after “Reject/Resubmit: Major Revisions”

A manuscript that received “Reject/Resubmit: Major Revisions Required and External Reviews Needed” decision in the previous round will be given a new manuscript ID when resubmitted. The original submission will still be listed on the “Manuscript Information” page, either in the “Version History” or the “Companion Paper” section.

2.3.1. Administrative Aspects

If you were the managing AE for a previous round of review, the resubmitted manuscript will be reassigned to you. All the same reviewers from the previous round, including those who recommended rejection, will be invited by the editorial office to expedite the review process. However, if you wish to exclude a reviewer, you may do so by leaving confidential comments to the editor in the recommendation at the end of the first round of review.

For resubmissions that had 3 reviewers in the previous round, the required number of reviewers remains the same.

The rest of the steps for handling a resubmission, such as following up with reviewers, granting reviewer requests for extensions, and making a recommendation, are the same as those for an original submission.

2.3.2. Make a Recommendation of

2.3.2.1. Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, Reject without Further Considerations, and Reject/Submit to Another Journal

The criteria for making these decisions are the same as those for Original Submissions described in Section 2.1.5.

2.3.2.2. Reject/Resubmit Major Revisions

If a manuscript offers significant novelty and is potentially highly impactful, and the authors have made a good-faith effort to address the major issues raised in the previous round of review, it may be worth considering a second major revision. Additionally, if there are new review comments that were not mentioned in the previous review, it may be appropriate to allow the authors another opportunity to address these comments. In making a recommendation for a second major revision, it is important to explain in Confidential Comments to the Editor why such an exception should be granted, such as the potential impact of the research or the authors’ willingness to make significant changes to address the major issues raised in the previous review.

2.4. Revisions after “Accept with Minor Revisions”

In ScholarOne, the term “Revisions” refers to manuscripts that have undergone minor revisions after a decision of “Accept with Minor Revisions with no External Review Required”. When a revision is submitted, its manuscript ID is the same as the original but with an added “.R1” or “.R2” at the end, for example, TMI-2020-1860.R1. The previous version(s) of the revision is listed in the “Version History” section of the “Manuscript Information” page.

When a revision submission is received, it is automatically assigned to the same associate editor by ScholarOne, and the previous reviewers are selected but not invited. The number of reviewers required is set at zero.

There are two options to carry forward the review of the revision.

Option 1: Invite the reviewers who made extensive comments or were critical in the last round and set the number of reviewers required accordingly. If all the reviewers from the last round are invited, they should be kept in the same order. For example, reviewer #2 in the last round will still be reviewer #2 in the new round.

Option 2: Review the changes yourself without inviting any reviewers. If you conclude that the authors have adequately addressed all the previous concerns, you can change the “# of required reviews” to 0 and make your recommendation.

3. Handle Appeals

The EiC will manage appeals. She will coordinate the review of the appeal and communicate with the parties involved. Whether you received the appeal directly or indirectly, contact the EiC and avoid engaging in direct communication with the authors.

3.1. As Managing AE

When an appeal is received on a manuscript you managed, the EiC will ask for your response to the authors’ appeal. She will consider your thoughts and comments and will include them in the response on behalf of the editorial board. In most cases, the response will explain why the original decision should stand. However, if a mistake is discovered, the decision may be altered.

3.2. As Second AE

When authors appeal 1) an Immediate Reject decision, or 2) against the response to their first appeal, the opinion of a second AE is sought. The identity of the 2nd AE will not be revealed to the authors.

The appeal will be assigned similar to a regular submission, except the manuscript type is “Administrative Communication.” The appeal letter and manuscript can be found under the Manuscript Files tab. The record of original submission is accessible under the Manuscript Information tab, in the Companion Papers section.

Once you reach a conclusion, change the “# reviews required to make decision” to “0” to Make a Recommendation with your comments. You should recommend either “Approve Appeal” or “Reject Appeal”. “Approve Appeal” means allowing the authors to submit the paper to start a new round of full-review.

Your help in assessing this appeal is greatly appreciated. We would like to receive your recommendation in about 10 days from today. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or Leslie if you have any questions.

4. Communication with Authors

If authors reach out to you seeking clarifications on the review comments to prepare for revision, please respond to the authors directly and copy the editorial office in the response. However, any other questions and concerns related to the peer-review process or the final decision should be directed to the EiC and Managing Editor.

5. AE Appointment

5.1. Selection protocol

5.1.1. Driving factor

New AEs are invited when there is a need to add an additional or replace an existing AE with expertise in a specific area.

5.1.2. Candidates

  • Referrals by trusted colleagues (TMI Associate Editors, for example).
    The referrer does not need to know the candidates personally. What is important in referrals is a level of assessment of the candidate’s integrity.

  • Search conducted by TMI editorial office.

  • Self-recommendations.

5.1.3. Evaluation criteria

  • Reviewer quality
    Review quality (being critical), timeliness, and quantity of reviews as a TMI reviewer.

  • Academic credentials
    Google Scholar and other academic/research citation indices.
    The academic ranking of the candidate AE is preferably at the level of Associate Professor or higher. This is to ensure that the AE is able to provide critical and objective assessments of submissions, even from prominent authors in the field.

  • Diversity considerations
    We promote diversity across geographical regions, countries, and genders. Typically, we limit one AE from one institute on the editorial board.

  • Education
    Candidates from countries where English is not the native language: Must demonstrate proficiency in writing in English.

Our standard procedure involves reviewing the credentials of potential candidates and assessing their fit within a specific specialty area. If we decide to extend an invitation, we contact the candidate and copy the person who made the referral in the email communication.

5.2. Term

Term of Appointment

  • Initial Appointment: Associate Editors (AEs) are initially appointed for a term of one year.
  • Renewal: At the end of the initial term, AEs may be reappointed for one- or two-year terms, subject to performance and mutual agreement.

Post-Term Responsibilities

  • Transition Period: Upon completion of their term, AEs are expected to remain active for an additional year to finalize any ongoing or resubmitted assignments. During this transition period, AEs will not be assigned new manuscripts.

Availability and Breaks

  • Maximum Unavailable Period: AEs may have a maximum of four months of unavailable time within any 12-month period.
  • Extended Breaks: Any breaks exceeding the four-month limit require prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Extended Breaks Procedure: AEs who anticipate needing a break longer than four months are encouraged to step down from their role and seek reappointment when they can fully commit to their duties.

Each year we expect to have a 10% roster turnover.

5.3. Exit

  • Stepping down: You can choose to step down from your role as AE at any time. Please inform the EiC and Managing Editor as soon as possible if you intend to do so.
  • Phasing out: A decision made by the EiC and Managing Editor not to renew an appointment at the end of its term. This decision may be based on a variety of factors, including failure in communication, excessively long turnaround time, controversial recommendations, the need to downsize a specific specialty area due to a reduced number of submissions, or considerations of geographical and gender diversity.
  • AEs who have served for more than 3 years are listed as “Past AEs” on TMI’s website.

The authors wish to thank Grace Yao and Grant Wang for their editorial help.

End.