Abstract:The IEEE Communications Letters board wishes to pay tribute to our reviewers, the unsung heroes of the review process. It is they who dig into a manuscript’s content, judge its novelty, find the error...The IEEE Communications Letters board wishes to pay tribute to our reviewers, the unsung heroes of the review process. It is they who dig into a manuscript’s content, judge its novelty, find the errors, and give advice. They do this all with the aim of improving the final manuscript or of preventing a flawed one from being published. Our reviewers have accepted these duties for too little credit and no pay. It’s time we expressed our heartfelt thanks. To the author, a reviewer can be a source of pleasure or pain. The statement, “This is a very good paper” can bring a smile to the dourest face. Similarly, the statement, “This paper has very little merit” can lead to several sleepless nights. However, once the bruised ego has a chance to recover, the author can find that his or her paper can be greatly improved by the reviewers’ comments. Many times the reviewers see holes in the argument that the author missed. A good review gives the author the chance to patch the holes or perhaps rebuild the argument from scratch. Even when a reviewer misinterprets the author’s arguments, this can lead the author to the conclusion: “Perhaps I need to reword or rethink my argument to make it clearer.” Many reviewers point out typos that the author just did not see. The reviewer is the author’s advocate. Much like the mother who points out, “Don’t you think a blue tie would be better with that suit, dear?” the reviewer is there to help the author before their ideas go public. For the reviewer too, there are benefits in a review well done. One is forced to make the time to read a technical document and expand one’s knowledge. A reviewer can contribute to our knowledge of the field or can prevent publication of material that is incorrect. When we submit a paper, we rely on the largesse of the anonymous reviewer. We can repay that debt through our own service as reviewers. Ultimately the editor is responsible for the decision to publish or not to publish. But like the judge who relies on the arguments of attorneys, the editor balances the arguments of the reviewers with his or her own judgment. Editors sometimes disagree with a reviewer, but this does not necessarily imply that the reviewers’ comments were not worthwhile. They provide a mechanism for the editor to better understand the paper. Sometimes reviewers prevent editors from making a mistake. Vigorous ‐ even hair-pulling ‐ conversations may occur between an editor and a reviewer on the correctness of an editorial decision. Though these conversations can be uncomfortable, I would like to think they happen because both sides care about the quality of our professional journals and both sides want to make the correct decision. I and others have learned much from these conversations. The basic role of the reviewer is to read the manuscript and provide a critique to the editor and the author. This critique should include the following points: •Is the paper novel? If not, who did it first and where was it published? •Does the paper have a good idea that would be of use to the reader? •Would the paper provide insight to the reader? •Is the paper technically correct? If not, can it be fixed? •Should the paper be shortened or expanded in parts? (At IEEE Communications Letters, we believe in the short and sweet approach.) Good reviewers provide all this and more. Editors know that not all reviews or reviewers are created equal. Some reviewers write wonderful reviews: reviews that explain in detail the pros and cons of the paper; reviews that suggest improvements that make the difference between a so-so paper and an ‘Ah-ha!’ paper; reviews that cut to the heart of the matter and explain clearly and succinctly what is wrong. Some reviewers answer the call of duty several times without complaint. We want to acknowledge these reviewers and thank them for their excellent work. IEEE Communications Letters has started a “Reviewer Appreciation Program” to thank our exemplary reviewers. We identify the reviewers through editor recommendations. Each exemplary reviewer receives a thank you note, a certificate acknowledging his or her service, and recognition on our website. The people listed below are IEEE Communications Letters exemplary reviewers for the year 2010 and represent fewer than 5 percent of all reviewers over the calendar year. We hope you will join their ranks in the following years.Read More
Publication Year: 2011
Publication Date: 2011-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot