Journal of Applied Robotics and Artificial Intelligence
For Editors
What handling a manuscript for this journal requires, from first reading to decision and afterwards.
- Editorial independence
- Confidential
- Recusal on interest
The role
What an editor undertakes
An editor decides what this journal publishes. The work is to read a submission on its own terms, find people able to assess it, weigh what they say, and reach a decision that can be explained to the author.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial or reviewer roles.
Handling
Handling a submission
First reading
Read the manuscript before looking for reviewers. Establish what it claims, whether the claim falls within the journal’s subject areas, and whether the evidence offered is of the kind the claim needs.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Choosing reviewers
Select reviewers with genuine expertise in the specific contribution, not only in the general field. A robotics manuscript resting on a learning method needs someone who can assess that method.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Where a manuscript spans two areas, choose reviewers who between them cover both.
Managing the review
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Reviews are advice. Where reviewers disagree, read the manuscript again rather than counting votes, and say in the decision letter how the disagreement was resolved.
Reaching a decision
State the decision plainly and give the reasons for it. A request for revision should say what must change and what would be enough.
Do not require evidence a manuscript’s claim does not call for. Theoretical, methodological, simulation and engineering contributions are each assessed against their own arguments.
Conduct
Conflicts, confidentiality and escalation
Conflicts of interest
Declare any financial, professional or personal interest in a submission. An editor with an interest, including authorship of the manuscript, takes no part in its assessment and it is handled independently.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, discuss its contents outside the review process, or use unpublished material.
Research integrity
Where a submission raises a question of ethics approval, consent, data integrity or image manipulation, pause the assessment and refer it to the editorial office rather than resolving it alone.
Allegations of misconduct follow documented procedures, and institutions are approached where a formal inquiry is needed.
Complaints and appeals
An appeal is considered by an editor who did not take the original decision. A complaint about an editor is handled by the publisher, not by that editor.
Related
What authors and reviewers are told
Editors work to the same published rules authors read: Editorial Policies states the journal’s policies in full, For Reviewers sets out what is asked of a review, and Instructions for Authors describes what authors are required to supply.
Next
Where to go from here
- Editorial PoliciesEthics, corrections, conflicts of interest and research integrity.
- For ReviewersWhat a useful review contains.
- Editorial BoardThe editors responsible for the journal’s decisions.
- Instructions for AuthorsHow to prepare and format a manuscript.
- Aims & ScopeThe subject areas a manuscript must fall within.
- About the JournalWhat the journal is for, who reads it and who is accountable.
Editorial questions that need the office rather than a judgment call go to [email protected].