Procedure for Submitting, Reviewing, and Publishing Articles in the
Journal of Systemic, Cybernetics, and Informatics: JSCI
The Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics (JSCI) is an open access journal that has been publishing, with no article processing charges (APCs), the best 25%-30% of the papers presented at conferences organized by the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS, www.iiis.org
), since 2003. This is equivalent to the 12%-20% of the articles submitted to these conferences.
The above editorial policy will continue, but on July 19th
, 2016, JSCI initiated the reception of submissions made directly
to the journal. This procedure has two steps, which do not include any submission or fast-tracking charges. (More details regarding this procedure and the acceptance policy
are provided in the following sections):
. The submission of an abstract (200-400 words) written for inter-disciplinary communication to JSCI at iiis.org
for its internal
If your abstract is accepted then you will be asked to submit your draft paper (about 5000 words) as submission for a virtual presentation at the next IIIS conference (two yearly conferences are usually organized). This is a necessary step to be made in order to meet the same kind of four-tier reviewing methodology and selection policy that has been applied since 2002. This reviewing methodology includes the following reviewing processes:
- The mandatory two-tier methodology (double-blind and non-blind) that has been applied, since 2006, to the papers published in the journal (http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/SCI/Methodology.pdf),
- The potential reviewing you might receive from our participative peer-to-peer reviewing (PPPR, www.iiis.org/conferences/PPPR, and
- The potential reviewing you might receive from the virtual session in which your paper will be included. Each face-to-face session will have a corresponding virtual session through which the respective authors can interact, via non-synchronous means, three days before and during the conference, as well as up to three weeks after the conference ends. Details for virtual sessions and participation can be found at www.iiis.org/conferences/virtual-participations-sessions
The two-tier mandatory reviewing and the additional two-tier potential reviewing are required for the acceptance and publication of any article submitted to the journal, especially because the articles published up to the present went through, at least, these four-tier reviewing (two mandatory and two potential ones). The two-tier mandatory reviewing is necessary for the paper acceptance and possible improvement. The additional two-tier potential reviewing is desirable for the improvement of the final version of the paper.
Please read below for more details regarding the submission procedure, selection policy, and, submission for fast track reviewing.
As stated above, the procedure of submitting abstracts will be via email and the submissions of the full paper draft will be via the respective conference web site (according the topic of the submitted paper). This two-step procedure corresponds to internal and external reviewing
In the first step (internal
review) the author submits an extended abstract (200-400 words), which should be 1) written for inter-disciplinary communication
, i.e. academics from different disciplines should be able to understand the extended abstract, and 2) contain at least the following three parts:
If the full paper is accepted in the second reviewing step (external review), then the extended abstract for inter-disciplinary communication might be used (by the author or JSCI) in the academic social media (e.g. academia.edu) linking it to the published full paper and, consequently, increasing the visibility of the paper.
- Objectives achieved and/or results attained.
- Means, methods, and/or methodologies used.
- Conclusions and/or possible next suggested steps.
By submitting this kind of extended abstract the authors, or co-authors, would be agreeing on making the commitment
- Submitting the full article draft according the respective deadline;
- Not submitting the same article for its potential review and publication via another venue while it is being reviewed by JSCI according the respective deadline of “notification to authors”;
- Not utilizing texts from other publications without making the respective references, and not using curves, diagrams, photos, tableaus, etc. without obtaining the respective permissions, if they are copyrighted. By not meeting this commitment the JSCI will stop the reviewing process of the article and will free the author from his/her commitment and expected ethical behavior of not submitting the same article for its potential publication in other venues, while it is being reviewed by JSCI; and
- Submitting the final version of the full paper if it is accepted in the second step of its reviewing process, described below.
Final acceptance depends on two kinds of reviews, but an article should be recommended by non-blind (i.e. non-anonymous) reviewers AND
double-blind (anonymous) reviewers in order to be accepted for its publication.
Recommendations of acceptance made by non-anonymous reviewers are necessary
but not sufficient
condition for paper’s final acceptance. A submitted paper, should also have a majority of its double-blind reviewers recommending its acceptance. If an article has been accepted by one of these two methods of reviewing but not by the other one, it would not be accepted unless it is modified according to the comments and to the requirements of those reviewers who recommended not accepting it as it is.
Together, both of these conditions generate a more reliable and rigorous
review than a reviewing processes based on just one of the indicated methods. More details for the supporting reasoning of this two-tier reviewing methodology can be found at http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/SCI/Methodology.pdf
. This level of reliability and quality assurance is required for a journal that has been publishing the best 25%-30% of the articles presented at a conference.
Fast Track Submissions
An additional requirement is needed if the author want to submit his/her paper for a fast track review process, which will allow for the publication of the paper before the selection process required for identifying the best papers. The procedure require a more rigorous reviewing because it requires the exclusion of the last step of selection, which is associated with the relative evaluation
required for identifying the best 25%-30% of all accepted papers that have been (virtually or face-to-face) presented at the conference. The two-step procedures for a fast track review process are the following:
1. This step is the same as the one described above for regular submission, while also making it explicit that the extended abstract is being sent for a fast track review process.
2. This step is similar to the second step in a regular submission (described above) with addition of the following requirements:
- The author should suggest at least three non-anonymous reviewers and no more than four for the non-blind reviewing process
- The organizing Committee will randomly select twice as many anonymous reviewers as the number selected for the regular submission, i.e. it will select at least 6 anonymous reviewers for the double blind review of the paper.
- A submission, to be accepted, should be recommended by the majority of both kinds of reviewers, as well as at least 65% of both of them combined.
Papers accepted via fast track reviewing will also be included in a virtual session of the associated conference.
Special Issues of the Journal might have different reviewing methodologies and acceptance policies. Any difference regarding the information provided here for the regular issues of the journal will be announced in the respective call for papers. Otherwise, the information provided here will also be applicable.
International Ethical Standards
The Journal of Systemic, Cybernetics, and Informatics: JSCI follows the “International standards for editors and authors” developed by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) during the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore in 2010. These ethical standards have been published as part of the conference proceedings under a Creative Commons license*. Wager E & Kleinert S (2011), Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7).
International Standards for Editors According to COPE
The text above was copied from:
- Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish
- Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
- Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
- Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
- Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
- Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them.
- Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.
International Standards for Authors According to COPE.
The text above was copied from:
- The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
- Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
- Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others. Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
- Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
- The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
- Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.