Such a recommendation is not made publicly visible.
The recommendation targets a specific journal, and can be for:
<ul>
<li>Publication with indication of the Tier:
<ul>
<li>I: surpasses expectations and criteria for this Journal</li>
<li>II: meets expectations and criteria for this Journal</li>
<li>III: narrowly meets expectations and criteria for this Journal</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Publication</li>
<li>Minor revision</li>
<li>Major revision</li>
<li>Rejection.</li>
...
...
@@ -402,9 +396,11 @@
Editorial College for voting. It is at this stage not communicated to the authors.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>If the Editorial Recommendation is for a minor or major revision, it is communicated
directly to the authors, who must then resubmit in order for further processing to take place. Upon resubmission, the Editor-in-charge
can either start a new refereeing round or directly formulate a new editorial recommendation.</p>
<p>If the recommendation is for a minor or major revision, it is communicated
directly to the authors, who must then resubmit in order for further
processing to take place. Upon resubmission, the Editor-in-charge
can either start a new refereeing round or directly formulate a new
editorial recommendation.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</li>
...
...
@@ -416,38 +412,57 @@
is made visible to all non-conflicted Fellows.
</p>
<p>
A number of Fellows (depending on the Journal) is selected by Editorial Administration and specifically given voting rights on the Recommendation. This selection is made to ensure sufficient expertise, enforce checks on impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Other qualified Fellows can claim voting rights on the Recommendation if they so wish, by contacting Editorial Administration (in the interest of workflow control, not all Fellows are expected to vote on all Recommendations, but rather only on the ones they are given voting rights on).
A number of Fellows (depending on the Journal) is selected by Editorial Administration and specifically given voting rights on the recommendation. This selection is made to ensure sufficient expertise, enforce checks on impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Other qualified Fellows can claim voting rights on the recommendation if they so wish, by contacting Editorial Administration (in the interest of workflow control, not all Fellows are expected to vote on all recommendations, but rather only on the ones they are given voting rights on).
</p>
<p>
The voting Fellows are asked to list which outcomes they find appropriate among the following list (they can mark more than one as acceptable):
The voting Fellows cast their opinion on the recommendation. They can:
<ul>
<li>Publication (Tier I)</li>
<li>Publication (Tier II)</li>
<li>Publication (Tier III)</li>
<li>Rejection.</li>
<li>agree</li>
<li>disagree</li>
<li>abstain.</li>
</ul>
</p>
<p>
The result of the vote is determined in the following way: the topmost outcome which a strict majority of non-abstaining Fellows find appropriate, is fixed as the College decision.
The result of the vote is determined by strict majority of non-abstaining
Fellows.
</p>
<p>
When agreeing with a recommendation for publication, voting Fellows
are asked to optionally rank the paper among the following Tiers:
<ul>
<li>I: surpasses expectations and criteria for this Journal</li>
<li>II: meets expectations and criteria for this Journal</li>
<li>III: narrowly meets expectations and criteria for this Journal.</li>
</ul>
</p>
<p>
This tiering is merely indicative and has no further impact
on publication. Voting Fellows can elect to leave the Tier unspecified.
</p>
<p>
If voting Fellows disagree with the recommendation, they are asked to specify
which recommendation(s) they would have supported.
A voting Fellow can thus disagree with a recommendation to publish and
specify that they think the paper should be rejected. Alternately,
the voting Fellow might also think that a higher-grade recommendation would
be more appropriate: a voting Fellow can thus disagree with a
recommendation for publication in a flagship journal because they
deem the paper to be appropriate for Selections.
</p>
<p>Example 1: the Editor-in-charge has formulated a Recommendation for Publication (Tier II). 9 Fellows (including the Editor-in-charge) have been given voting rights. 2 Fellows abstain. 3 Fellows have listed Publication (Tier II) as highest appropriate outcome. 1 has listed Publication (Tier III) as highest appropriate outcome. 3 Fellows have listed Ask for major revision as highest appropriate outcome. The College decision is fixed to Publication (Tier III).</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Publication in flagship Journal, with extended abstract in Selections</strong>
<p>
Submissions to a flagship title which are deemed to be of superlative
quality and obtain a majority vote for Publication as Tier I
are promoted to a special status whereby the main paper is prepared
for publication in the field flagship title,
and the extended abstract is separately
prepared for publication in SciPost Selections.
quality can be recommended for publication in SciPost Selections.
This means that the main paper is published in the flagship journal,
and the extended abstract is published in SciPost Selections.
</p>
</li>
<li><strong>Recommendation for Publication</strong>
<p>
If the editorial recommendation is to publish the paper
(irrespective of the Tier) and voting conditions for acceptance
and voting conditions for acceptance
are met, the authors are informed and the paper is immediately
forwarded to Production.
</p>
...
...
@@ -458,15 +473,14 @@
<ul>
<li>a request for revision, which is then forwarded to the authors, further
consideration of the manuscript then following the rules for resubmission</li>
<li>publication in another Journal.</li>
<li>publication in another Journal (for example, a submission failing
to be accepted in a flagship title can then be recommended
for publication in the field's <em>Core</em> title)</li>
<li>rejection.</li>
</ul>
<br/>
For example, a submission failing to meet the requirements to be published
in a field-leading title can be put forward for publication in the field's
<em>Core</em> title.
</p>
</li>
<li><strong>Rejection</strong>
<li><strong>Recommendation for Rejection</strong>
<p>
If the editorial recommendation is to reject the paper,
and the voting procedure supports this, the paper is rejected.
