Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — |
instructions_for_editor [2018/10/23 13:26] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ====== Instructions for editor ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Assigning peer-reviewers ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Avoid assigning the topic to students currently assigned on other tasks (e.g. writing, revising) | ||
| + | * Double-check that the referee is not a co-author!! | ||
| + | * On average, twice as many peer-reviewers as there are authors | ||
| + | * Furthermore, assign the guest lecturer as author | ||
| + | * In total, students should do 2 peer-reviews over the course of the semester, so keep in mind future constraints when assigning students (e.g. students writing a review on the 2nd last topic need to finish their two peer-review assignments by then!) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Communicating decision and reports back to authors ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Once the peer-reviews are in, make a decision and send the decision email to: | ||
| + | * To: all authors (manually add non-corresponding authors to corresponding field) | ||
| + | * Cc: guest and regular lecturers | ||
| + | * Bcc: all peer-reviewers | ||
| + | * Include all peer-reviews submitted in plain text at the end of the decision email by clicking on the button "Import Peer Reviews" | ||
| + | * Attach all peer-reviews submitted as separate PDF/DOC | ||
| + | * If the decision has to be sent before all reports are in, regularly monitor the journal for submission of the late report because the editor is not notified when a report is submitted after decision. | ||