First authors submitting a paper for publication in the BFY Proceedings are required to participate in the peer review by reviewing up to three papers. Co-authors may be requested to participate by reviewing up to three papers.
The BFY Proceedings are intended to be inclusive; welcoming not just significant or final results, but also preliminary research results and discussions of works-in-progress. Contributed papers are reviewed based on the following six criteria:
Authors should keep in mind that, because of the short time between the BFY Conference and the publication of the BFY Proceedings, papers requiring substantial or content-based revisions that would necessitate a re-review cannot be accepted. Thus, authors should ensure that the paper they submit is readable, follows a logical progression, is without spelling and grammatical issues and that the research behind it is sound.
The pool of peer reviewers is made up of all authors listed on papers submitted to be peer reviewed. Additional reviewers from the Advanced Laboratory community who have not submitted a paper may be asked to review as the need arises. Papers submitted are assigned to three peer reviewers.
Editorial decisions are not a matter of following the majority recommendation. The strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors are carefully evaluated.
If all reviewers recommend that a paper be published, it will be accepted. If one or more reviewers recommend that a paper be declined, the editors will read all the reports carefully and decide whether the objections are serious enough to warrant not publishing the paper. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted paper lies with the Editor.
Once a paper is accepted, the authors will be given the reviewer reports and a short amount of time to make the necessary revisions before submitting a final version of the paper.
The typical acceptance rate of contributed papers in the BFY Proceedings is between 70% and 80%.
Policies and Practices
The following are some of the general practices and policies applied to reviewers of the BFY Proceedings:
What happens if someone can't review and notifies the editors?
Co-authors may also be asked to assist in the peer review process and should be willing to do so except in extenuating circumstances that prevent them from doing so.
In either case, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editor so that a replacement can be found.
What happens if someone doesn't submit their reviews and has not contacted the editors?
If the person is a secondary author, their name will be placed on a list of those authors who have not complied with the requirements of submitting paper to the BFY Proceedings.
Authors whose names are placed on the list for non-compliance will be flagged if they are listed as a first or secondary author on a future paper and sent an e-mail indicating that if they fail to participate as expected during this cycle of peer review that they will be unable to submit papers to the following BFY Proceedings. Continued non-compliance will result in a banning of an individual from submitting future papers.
If an author feels that a mistake has been made in the review process, he or she may contact the Editor for clarification or appeal, but in all cases, the Editors have the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of papers.
brought to you by the AAPT and NSF
a member of the comPADRE Digital Library
©2007-2019, All Rights Reserved
contact Advanced Labs
|about - disclaimer - terms - privacy - faq - sitemap|