About the Journal
This journal is free to read and free to publish in.
Peer review is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Advances in Computing and Engineering (ACE) and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below. Overall process for publishing a paper is expected to take approximately two months after initial submission. Reviewing process will take about one month, and then publishing process will not exceed one more month. 1. Initial manuscript evaluation The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 2 to 3 weeks of receipt. 2. Type of Peer Review This journal employs single blind reviewing, the author identity is disclosed to the referee, while the referee remains anonymous throughout the process. 3. How the referee is selected Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. ACE has a policy of using single blind refereeing (as detailed in the previous section), with neither referee from the country of the submitting author. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used. All submitted articles are sent to two reviewers. 4. Referee reports Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript support followings key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation: 4.1. Technical 1. Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness. 2. Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts. 3. Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing. 4.2. Quality 1. Originality: Is the work relevant and novel? 2. Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. 3. Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? 4. Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length? 4.3. Presentation 1. Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article? 2. Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service? 3. Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear? 4. Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted. 5. Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful? Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. 5. How long does the review process take? Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within one month. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. All our referees sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within 1 week. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript. 6. Editorial decisions After peer review and referee recommendation, the editor-in-chief, with the assistance of the associate editor, will study the paper together with reviewer comments to make one of the following decisions. • Accept • Accept pending minor revision: no external review required • Reject/Resubmit: major revisions needed and a new peer-review required • Reject 7. Final report A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
This journal publishes two issues in one volume per year.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office. Prospective organisers of a Special Issue should contact the Editor in the first instance to agree the appropriateness of content, the number and size of papers, the refereeing process (including the names of prospective referees), and the timescale for receipt of final copy after reviewing.
Charges and Fees
The journal is open-access with no charges (neither Articles Processing Charges ‘APCs’ nor any submission charges). So ACE is free of charge for authors and readers, and operates an online submission with the peer review system allowing authors to submit articles online and track their progress via its web interface.