Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web
Peer Review Process for the Journal of Web Semantics
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal of Web Semantics and all manuscripts are reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor1 first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts 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 two experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed approximately within two weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
The Journal of Web Semantics employs single blind review, in which referees remain anonymous for the author throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We request suggestions of referees from the author, though these recommendations are not necessarily used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
Is original
Is methodologically sound
Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
Correctly cites earlier relevant work
Language correction is not part of the peer review process but referees may, is they so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of referees. However, the typical time for the Journal of Web Semantics is presently 10 weeks. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee's report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee's report. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a referee for the Journal of Web Semantics
The benefits of refereeing for the Journal of Web Semantics include the opportunity to read and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. If you are not currently a referee for the Journal of Web Semantics, but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact one of the Editors (see contact details at www.elsevier.com/locate/websem).
1 Throughout the document "Editor" can be read as "Editor in Chief" as well as "Regional Editor"
Home | Elsevier Sites | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Feedback | Site Map | A Reed Elsevier Company