TRel requires each paper to be reviewed by THREE (3) independent reviewers. When inviting reviewers, please be sure to check if the author has any suggested/non-preferred reviewers. If you invite a reviewer recommended by the author, you must also invite another reviewer not recommended by the author.
Special cases: Contact Professor W. Eric Wong, Editor-in-Chief
Every paper needs to be reviewed by at least TWO (2) reviewers not recommended by the author.
Once you have selected the reviewers, you will need to click the blue invite button to send the invitation to the reviewers. Otherwise, the invitation email will not be sent.
It is a good strategy to invite more than three reviewers, as some may not accept the invitations or submit their reviews in time.
IEEE requires that each accepted paper have at least two ACCEPT recommendations from independent peer reviewers, and an AE cannot be a peer reviewer.
This requirement can be waived if the previous version of a paper has an ACCEPT recommendation and a Minor Revision recommendation. Under this condition, the AE can serve as a reviewer to carefully examine the revised submission and to make sure all the comments have been satisfactorily addressed. If so, the AE can recommend to accept this paper. However, the AE must also complete a review report in the section “Comments to the Author” like a regular reviewer to justify why he/she gives an ACCEPT recommendation.
If a paper receives at least one Major Revision and one Reject recommendation (no matter what the other recommendations are), it should be rejected unless the AE can provide a strong justification to explain why the paper should not be rejected.
Under no circumstances can a paper be accepted without revision if it receives at least one REJECT recommendation from any reviewer.
A paper is allowed to go through at most THREE (3) iterations (initial submission, R1, and R2). After the second revision, except for very minor editorial changes, if the paper still cannot be accepted, any additional revision must be submitted as a new submission.
Please inform authors that when they submit a revised version, in addition to the manuscript, they must also include a separate list at the beginning of the pdf file detailing how each reviewer’s comment is addressed in their paper.
Please examine whether a paper is within the main scope of TRel.
We will not publish papers:
TRel requires all papers to include a substantial discussion of previous and related works, including and especially previous work from the same author (group).
TRel gives higher priority to papers with results from case studies on real-life applications and discussions of possible impacts in the field.
Papers published in TRel should deal with real issues in reliability. We are not interested in publishing a paper with only a few pages, unless it is exceptionally well-written with solid real-life applications. Those that mainly consist of models and/or mathematical formulas based on simplified/artificial assumptions and approximations and do not provide clear examples of the practical use of these models/formulas are unlikely to be accepted.
Since we have a large number of high quality submissions, we only accept papers that have solid endorsement from the reviewers. A paper in which there are any major concerns that have not been addressed cannot be accepted.
TRel has a long tradition on being strict about overlapping/plagiarism between submissions and previously published papers. The current threshold is 30%. Any submission that is over this limit will be rejected without further evaluation. Please advise authors that the best way to avoid this problem is not to copy and paste paragraphs from other papers, including their own publications.
When you submit your preliminary decision, you need to justify it. Please do not leave the section “Associate Editor’s Summary” blank. Also, the justification cannot be over-simplified. For example, it is inappropriate to say that a paper should be rejected (or accepted) because the reviewers have suggested so. You should read all the comments and determine whether there are any contradictions between a reviewer’s recommendation and his/her detailed comments. Any recommendation without appropriate justification should be excluded.
We have noticed that some reviewers (especially those recommended by the authors) simply want to accept a paper without providing any comments or only giving very shallow comments. Such biased reviews cannot be used to support the acceptance of a paper.
To improve the review quality, it is critical that you write your own concluding comments based on reviewers’ feedback and perhaps your evaluation of the paper as well. In short, your preliminary decision should not only be based on reviewers’ recommendations without examining their detailed comments. If you observe some suspicious and/or inconsistent comments, please use your best judgment to determine whether they should be discarded. If you still want to include them, you may consider lowering their weight while making your decision.
In some cases, the detailed comments submitted by a reviewer as an attachment are either not properly uploaded to the system or are in the system but not included along with an AE’s preliminary decision. If this happens, the AE needs to manually upload these files and send an email to the Editor-in-Chief so that he can ask IEEE to check with ScholarOne Manuscripts to find out what goes wrong.
A reviewer may mistakenly enter his/her comments into the filed marked “Confidential Comments to the Editor” even though they are really meant for the authors. As a result, only the editors can see these comments. If this is the case, you need to manually copy and paste these comments into your decision letter so that such information can be shared with the authors to not only help them understand how you make your acceptance/revision/rejection decision, but also provide them with useful guidance to further improve their papers.
To make sure all the submissions are in the same format and to better estimate the length of each manuscript, authors will be required to use a style similar to that in the printed version of TRel. More precisely, it should be in the standard double-column and single-space format. The font size should be 11-point. We will include this information as part of the submission process so that authors will have to read these instructions and check the corresponding box before uploading their manuscripts. Any submissions that do not comply with the required format will be returned to the authors for reformatting.
IEEE will send us a biweekly report that shows which papers are suffering from late reviews and the names of the corresponding AEs who are in charge of the evaluation. This information can help TRel keep a close eye on every submission and make sure its reviews are completed in a timely manner.
We will contact you via email if you are on the list. If you receive such a reminder, please complete your assignment(s) as soon as possible. It is very important that we speed up the review process. We need to reduce submission-decision time.
Journal First Submission
If authors indicate their papers are Journal First Submission, they must provide appropriate justification as part of the submission.
The IEEE Publication Services and Products Board (PSPB) has asked its staff to develop a process (which is fairly complex) to measure the time from submission to online publication of every article in a journal.
The report is designed to provide information on how long it takes to publish journal articles from the original submission to the journal for review to the first date of publication in IEEE Xplore. Included in the report are four key metrics for each journal:
In response, we have taken the following steps:
(This is posted at the beginning of the submission page in ScholarOne Manuscript system so that every author must read them and click the associated check box to show his/her understanding before proceeding with the submission. The same information also appears on the website of Reliability Society under Publications.)
Please add a separator (“=========”) between the comments from each reviewer to increase the readability. See the following example:
Dear XXX:
Thank you for submitting the following manuscript
TR-201x-xxx entitled “xxxxxxxxx”
to the IEEE Transactions on Reliability.
..................
..................
..................
Sincerely,
Your Name
Associate Editor
IEEE Transactions on Reliability
================================================== (Please add this line manually)
Associate Editor’s Summary
(Please do not leave this section blank.)
================================================== (Please add this line manually)
Reviewers’ Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
..................
..................
..................
================================================== (Please add this line manually)
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
..................
..................
================================================== (Please add this line manually)
Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
..................
..................
================================================== (Please add this line manually)