ASTED tasks

Task 1 Pre-assess new submissions

• make a recommendation:

  • typically takes 15 to 30 minutes per manuscript

  • complete within 2 to 3 days

  • options: peer review | reject with invitation to resubmit | reject outright

    • symposium and invited manuscripts are sent out for peer review unless there the editor finds flaws that prevent the manuscript from being peer reviewed (such as figures mangled during the conversion to pdf format)

    • contributed manuscripts require more scrutiny because they have not gone through the pre-submission vetting process of invited and symposium manuscripts

Each new submission is assigned to an Assistant and an Associate Editor by the Managing Editor, according to previously agreed portfolios.

The Assistant Editor pre-assesses each new submission to judge whether it is ready for full peer review.  This pre-assessment typically takes 15 to 30 minutes.  Although rejection without peer review is rare (fewer than 1% of symposium submissions), manuscripts may be rejected at this stage on grounds of poor quality.  New Assistant Editors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the quality standards and scope of ICB, and the type of papers that ICB publishes.

If you recommend 'reject without peer review', you must provide a rationale to the associate editor.  If you recommend ‘reject with invitation to resubmit’, please provide guidance about how the manuscript must be improved.

Task 3 Make a recommendation based on peer reviews

• typically takes 30 to 60 minutes per manuscript 

• complete within 2 to 3 days

• read and rate all peer reviews

• make a recommendation. Options: ‘Accept as is’, ‘Minor revision’, ‘Major revision’, ‘Reject’ or ‘Reject and allow resubmission’

• synthesize and prioritize peer reviewers' comments to the authors (see instructions below)

You are able to view peer reviews as soon as the peer reviewer submits them.  The Managing Editor will alert you when all reviews have been returned.

Recommendation. You will re-assess the manuscript, taking into account the reviewer comments, and provide a recommendation of ‘Accept as is’, ‘Minor revision’, ‘Major revision’, ‘Reject’ or ‘Reject and allow/encourage resubmission’.  

You will write a recommendation (typically not exceeding 500 words in length) with a clear explanation of why you made your particular recommendation so that the associate editor and the authors are aware of the exact reasoning behind your recommendation. These comments should be honest and constructive. 

Synthesis of peer reviews. If the peer reviews are unprofessional, contradictory, or contain concerns that must be addressed for the mansucript to be publishable, please address those issues explicitly in your comments to the Associate Editor. For more detailed advice, please refer to the page on Peer review challenges.

Given our tight timeline, we discourage multiple rounds of revision.  Hence it is important that you provide authors with clear guidelines on how to revise their manuscript in order to make it suitable for publication. Clearly indicate which recommended revisions are mandatory (the manuscript will be rejected if the authors do not comply with the recommendation) and which are optional (the authors may opt not to follow this recommendation).  All recommendations made by the Assistant Editor will be reviewed by the Associate Editor who will make the decision on the manuscript.

If you are not confident in providing an assessment based on the existing review reports, reach out to your peer mentors within our editorial board for advice.  Once again, we expect assessments to be made within 3 days to ensure timely publication.