General Information

Acta Electronica Sinica employs a double-blind peer review process. This means that while reviewers are not aware of the authors' identities, the authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities. Additionally, reviewers are kept anonymous from one another.

The anonymity allows reviewers to provide candid feedback without fear of retribution from authors. 

Review Process

When a manuscript is submitted to Acta Electronica Sinica, it first undergoes an "Admin Checklist" conducted by the editorial staff. This step ensures that all necessary items are included in the submission before it is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and the Area Editor (ARE) for evaluation. If the EIC and ARE deems the manuscript worthy of full peer review, it will be sent out for in-depth review by external reviewers.

If the EIC and ARE decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, it will be assigned to an editor who will oversee the peer review process. The editor will select and invite researchers with relevant expertise. Reviewer selection is crucial to the review process, and we strive to ensure that all technical and conceptual aspects of the work are adequately covered. Authors may suggest reviewers; while these suggestions are often helpful, they are not always followed. Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors. The EIC will make the final decision based on the ARE’s recommendation, the editor's recommendation, and the reviewers' feedback, considering several possible outcomes:

Accept: The manuscript is highly suitable, of general interest, and of high quality. No substantive edits are required prior to publication.

Minor Revisions: The manuscript is highly suitable and of general interest, but minor changes are needed to enhance its quality. Minimal revisions are required for further consideration for publication in Acta Electronica Sinica. These revisions should not necessitate significant modifications or additional experimentation.

Major Revisions: The manuscript has high suitability and general interest but requires substantial improvement in quality. Significant revisions may be necessary, including additional experimentation or calculations to support the results or substantial editing to clarify the findings.

Reject: The manuscript lacks suitability, general interest, and/or quality. It may not fit the journal's scope, fail to meet scientific criteria for publication, contain significant flaws in data and findings, or be deemed unsuitable for other reasons articulated by the reviewers.

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a specific course of action, but they should be aware that other reviewers may have different technical expertise and/or perspectives. The editor may have to recommend a decision based on conflicting advice.

The EIC and ARE may seek further advice from reviewers, especially in cases of disagreement or when authors believe they have been misunderstood on factual points. We ask that reviewers be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. However, we recognize that reviewers may be reluctant to engage in prolonged disputes, so we aim to keep consultations to a minimum necessary to ensure a fair evaluation for the authors.

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, the editor will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious effort to address the criticisms.

We take reviewers' criticisms seriously, particularly technical criticisms, which we are very reluctant to disregard. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult other reviewers to determine if an unduly critical standard is being applied. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes but prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, such as a specialist technical point, that requires further advice.

Selecting Peer-Reviewers

Reviewer selection is a critical component of the publication process. We base our choices on multiple factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own previous experiences with a reviewer's performance. For instance, we prioritize referees who are prompt, thorough, and provide well-reasoned feedback, whether they are robustly critical or more lenient.

We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should treat these communications as confidential, as they contain sensitive information.

Acta Electronica Sinica is committed to achieving diverse demographic representation among peer reviewers. Authors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other diverse groups when suggesting peer reviewers.