Reviewing Process

Common for all types of paper is:

  • All the administrative work is centrally organized via the FoMaC Editorial Office. Special Section Editors may directly contact the potential authors.
  • Because FoMaC addresses a wide audience there is a specific emphasis on a style accessible to everybody educated in computer science. This requires in particular a tangible motivation and a clear positioning of the results relative to the state of the art, comprising adequate examples and intuitive explanations.
  • Technically involved material and detailed proofs, not necessary to understand the essence and the impact of the contributions, are not typical for FoMaC, and should be replaced by references of other publications or the Electronic Supplementary Material.

In average, the turn-around time shall be less than two months. Thus in straightforward cases it is possible to get a submission published in less than 4 months.

Regular Papers submitted for FoMaC are delegated to an appropriate Area Editor, who

  1. proposes experts for a technical review,
  2. takes the final decision on the basis of the reviews and the adequacy as a contribution for FoMaC, and
  3. writes a summary report together with recommendations for the authors.

Typically, a submission and all its revisions are handled by the same area editor and the same reviewers.

Special Section Proposals are handled by the editors in chief and evaluated and supported in cooperation with the editorial team. Event-based Special Sections are selected on the basis of the profile and reputation of the corresponding event (a conference, a workshop, a research project summary, a Summer school). The evaluation process for customised Special Sections instead concentrates on improving the quality of the proposal, and it gives feedback on the selected topic, the corresponding balance of the envisaged contributions, and the choice of authors.

The reviewing process of Special Sections Contributions is handled by the Special Section (Guest) Editors along the lines of the standard reviewing procedure. As most of these contributions are invited, the reviewing process focuses more on suggestions of improvement than on selection. It is the (Guest) Editors duty to

  1. Propose experts for a technical review – some peer reviewing between the various authors of the Special Section is recommended.
  2. Take editorial decisions on the basis of the reviews and the adequacy of the contribution for FoMac and provide a summarizing feedback to the authors
  3. Trim the Special Section for coherence, in particular by suggesting cross referencing between the individual contributions, and, in particular in case of Thematic Sessions, by conveying a common message via the introductory paper.
    1. The whole process is directly supported by the Editors in Chief.