ACM DL

Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems (POMACS)

Menu

Search POMACS
enter search term and/or author name


Social Media

SIGN UP FOR TOC SERVICES :
EMAIL OR RSS

Review Process

The editorial board manages all submissions to POMACS, and comprises:

  • A group of Associate Editors, including the Editor-In-Chief. Their primary role is to assign new submissions to appropriate Editors, and ensure that reviewing processes run smoothly.
  • A group of Editors, whose primary responsibility is to review individual submissions.

The initial review process is expected to take approximately 10 weeks:

Week 1: Quick Reject and Reviewer Assignment: Upon initial submission, the Editors will determine whether the submission is appropriate for POMACS. If not, they will make quick reject decisions and inform the authors within a week of submission. The other submissions will be assigned to the Associate Editors (AEs) to manage the review process. The AEs will assign reviews from other members of the editorial board.  

Weeks 2-5: Initial reviewers will be given 4 weeks to provide a detailed review of the submission and will be asked to provide a summary judgment placing the paper into one of the following categories:

  • Accept with Minor Revisions: There are only minor changes required to make the submission suitable for publication. The AE is responsible for ensuring the changes are made before the paper is fully accepted for publication.
  • Major Revisions Required: The AE and reviewers feel that there is potential for a publishable outcome for the submission, but not without a significant revision to address issues enumerated by the reviewer.
  • Reject: The reviewers do not feel that either of the categories above is appropriate.

Weeks 6-8: In case of conflicting reviews, the AEs will assign another set of 2 Editors to review the manuscript, who will follow the same procedure as the initial reviewers.

Weeks 9-10: The AEs will lead an online discussion with the reviewers, focusing on any differences of opinion. The AEs will make a recommendation on the decision using the three categories above, and write a meta review of the submission explaining that recommendation and detailing any required minor or major revisions.  This recommendation will then be communicated by the AEs to the authors. Subsequently, the process depends on the outcome of the review:

  • Accept with Minor Revisions: Authors must address the points raised in the reviews and particularly the meta-review and submit the updated version for the AE to provide final approval.  Authors may communicate through the submission system with the AE for clarifications.  
  • Major revisions: The meta review will summarize specific expectations for how the paper needs to be modified for the revision to be considered. Authors will be allowed to upload a revision of their paper at the subsequent submission deadline. The authors may communicate anonymously through the submission system with the AEs for clarifications.  Revisions should use color to highlight the changes to the document, and also include a statement on how the reviewer comments are addressed. Upon receipt of the revision, the AEs will request reviews from all of the original reviewers.  If the AE feels the need, a new reviewer (or reviewers) can be invited, and the results of the past review(s) will be shared with them. This round of reviews will also result in a decision of either “Accept with Minor Revisions” or “Reject”.  Revisions should use color to highlight the changes to the document, and also include a statement on how the reviewer comments are addressed. Upon receipt of the revision, the AE will request reviews from all of the original reviewers.  If the AE feels the need, a new reviewer (or reviewers) can be invited, and the results of the past review(s) will be shared with them. This round of reviews should take no more than four weeks, and result in a decision of either “Accept with Minor Revisions” or “Reject”.
  • Reject: The authors will receive a clear indication from the Associate Editor’s meta review as to why the paper was rejected. Concerns about the review result should be referred to the AEs.  A rejected submission may be resubmitted to POMACS at any future deadline. However the authors must declare using the submission form that the paper was previously submitted and rejected and the prior reviews will be made available to the new AE/reviewers.   Papers submitted with no changes are likely candidates for Quick Reject.  
 
All ACM Journals | See Full Journal Index