Manual for Journal Editors

This Manual has been prepared to acquaint editors and associate editors of primary research journals published by the American Mathematical Society with their official duties and standard procedures to be followed when handling manuscripts.

Complete copy of the Manual for Journal Editors

Contents
    A.    Scientific Aspects
            1.    Criteria for Recommending Publication
            2.    Functions Performed by the Editor in Evaluating Manuscripts
                    a. Preliminary evaluation
                    b. Selection of a referee
                    c. Final evaluation

    B.    Nonscientific Aspects
            1.    Centralized Manuscript Submission
            2.    Tracking Manuscripts in Peer Review
            3.    Recording the Refereeing Process
            4.    Final Correspondence
            5.    Miscellaneous

Appendix

A. Information for Authors of Accepted Papers for AMS Publications

Websites of Interest
AMS Journals Home Page

Author Resource Center

Author Packages for Publishing with the AMS

Benefits of LaTeX

CENTRACK

Frequently Asked Questions for AMS Authors

Guidelines for Journal Editors, To guide the decision making process

TeX Resources Home Page

Standard Procedures for Handling Manuscripts

A. Scientific Aspects

An editor is primarily responsible for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. In carrying out this responsibility, an editor is encouraged to adopt a critical attitude, accepting only those papers that contain new research results and good exposition, are clearly written, and will be of interest to an appreciable number of readers. Although referees make the recommendations for acceptance or rejection of papers, the final decisions rest with the editor. Furthermore, as the one who chooses the referees, the editor holds the final responsibility for the quality of accepted papers. By acting as a liaison between the authors and the Society, the editor assists the Society in maintaining cordial relations with the authors. See the “Guidelines for Journal Editors, To guide the decision making process”, which were adopted at the January 2005 meeting of the Council of the American Mathematical Society.

1. Criteria for Recommending Publication. Although each journal should have its own statement of editorial policy for acceptance of papers, the set of criteria listed below may be taken as a standard for such statements.

a. Papers must be correct. While this is basically the author's responsibility, the referee certainly must be reasonably convinced of the accuracy of the paper.

b. Papers must be new in a nontrivial sense; e.g., a collection of new definitions and deductions therefrom is not publishable unless the author shows that (or unless it is clear that) it simplifies or solves some existing problems of reasonable importance. Similarly, a new theorem with an old proof may not be publishable. The editorial committee should collectively strive to seek out papers that will enable the journal to represent contemporary mathematical research significantly in its many dynamic facets. There should be a consensus of the committee as to the standards of excellence which will ensure this objective, and the quality of a paper should be judged on this basis.

c. Papers must be of interest to an appreciable number of readers, not just the author’s students and a few colleagues.

d. Papers must be written clearly; at least the referee should be able to understand them without undue difficulty. In a paper which is otherwise marginal, failure in this respect could be cause for rejection.

2. Functions Performed by the Editor in Evaluating Manuscripts. The three main functions performed by the editor in handling manuscripts are: preliminary evaluation, selection of referees, and final evaluation. The scientific aspects of these procedures are described below.

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editor must first decide whether it has arrived at the appropriate editor’s desk. If the manuscript must be forwarded to another editor, the author should be notified of this action when receipt of the manuscript is acknowledged. Manuscripts can be reassigned through CENTRACK (see Section B, 2. Tracking Manuscripts in Peer Review).

a. Preliminary evaluation. The editor should scan the paper for content to determine whether it should be assigned to a referee. Occasionally, it will be immediately apparent that the results of a paper have already been published or that the paper itself is nonsense. In such cases, the editor may return the paper with a tactful letter explaining the reason for rejection. Most papers, however, will be bona fide and will require refereeing. Editors should record the rejection in CENTRACK (see Section B, 2. Tracking Manuscripts in Peer Review).

b. Selection of a referee. By experience, an editor acquires a list of conscientious referees as well as a list of individuals who have been unsatisfactory referees because they failed to read a paper, they kept it too long, or they rejected it without giving a reason. In fact, one of the most useful pieces of information an editor can give to a successor is a list of unsatisfactory referees along with a list of suggested referees.

A referee is asked to recommend acceptance, rejection, or revision of papers; the final decision rests with the editor. Each recommendation should be clear and well founded and should be based on a thorough reading of the paper. Since the referee’s report will be transmitted (anonymously) to the author, reasons for a recommendation should be carefully stated without revealing the identity of the referee.

• Refereeing time. Each referee who agrees to review a manuscript will be asked to agree also to a target date for completion of a report. An editor should write to the referee near the target date for a report in order to ask for a new target date.

• Referee's report. A referee’s report should be based on a thorough reading of the paper, and recommendations for rejection or revision should be clear and well founded. Because the referee must remain anonymous, the report should be submitted without revealing the identity of the referee. It can then be included in the editor’s report to the author. In most cases, the referee’s report will be sent to the author, although there are exceptions.

c. Final evaluation.

Acceptance. If the referee has recommended acceptance of a paper without comment or substantial criticism, the editor should communicate with the author regarding final preparation of the paper for publication. Editors should give a copy of Appendix A, “Information for Authors of Accepted Papers for AMS Publications” to accepted authors. This document includes key information for:

• Abstract Preparation

• Math Subject Classification

• Graphic Preparation

• Permissions

• Consent to Publish

It is important at this time to inform the Production Department in Providence of the acceptance of the paper through CENTRACK (see Section B, 4. Final Correspondence).

Rejection. If the referee has recommended that a paper be rejected and the editor agrees, the manuscript should be returned to the author with the referee’s report. Occasionally, it may be necessary to rewrite a report to clarify the reasons for rejection or to make it less offensive. If the referee’s reasons for rejection of a paper are unsatisfactory or appear to be biased in some way, the editor should seek a second opinion on the paper. It is important at this time to notify the Production Department in Providence of the rejection of the paper through CENTRACK.

Revision. If the referee has suggested that the paper be revised, the editor should make sure that the reasons are clear and the suggestions are reasonable. The report can then either be forwarded directly to the author or paraphrased to emphasize the principal suggestions for improvement.

B. Nonscientific Aspects

This section describes the procedural aspects of handling a manuscript after initial submission to the AMS.

1. Centralized Manuscript Submission. Submission of articles to AMS journals is centralized in the Providence production office. Articles are submitted to the Providence office by the author in one of two formats: PDF file or paper. Electronic (PDF) files are submitted through a web-based interface at http://www.ams.org/cgi-bin/peertrack/submission.pl. Paper submissions are mailed to the Providence office. Manuscripts received in paper format are scanned by Providence staff to create PDF files which are entered into our database. Providence staff evaluates the submission for completeness, informs the author and editor of receipt, sends the article to the appropriate editor, and moves the manuscript into a web-based tracking tool for editors called CENTRACK.

2. Tracking Manuscripts in Peer Review. CENTRACK is the AMS-created tracking tool for AMS journal editors so they can access articles submitted for consideration electronically. Editors can also arrange for their support staff to gain access to CENTRACK by contacting centrack-help@ams.org.
CENTRACK allows editors to log in the various steps that take place during the refereeing process including maintaining the most recent PDF file of the manuscript, reassigning papers to another editor, and notifying the author and the AMS when a paper has been accepted. A demo version is available at http://www.ams.org/msdemo/demo.html. For help in using CENTRACK, go to http://www.ams.org/centrack_doc/editorinstructions.html.
Once a paper has been accepted, the editor should record this information in CENTRACK and upload the accepted version of the PDF file. Editors may elect to send hard copy of the accepted paper to the Providence office. If sending hard copy, the editor must include the following information with the paper:

• Name of the journal

• Accepting editor

• Date of original submission

• Date of acceptance

• Date(s) of revised submission(s)

Authors should be instructed by the editor to send the final version of the electronic manuscript to the Providence office immediately after acceptance. “Where to Send Files for Papers Accepted for AMS Publication” contains detailed information on accepted article submission.

3. Recording the Refereeing Process. CENTRACK should be used to track manuscripts during peer review including when the paper is with a referee. CENTRACK makes it easy to follow up on outstanding manuscripts.

4. Final Correspondence. It is the responsibility of the editor to notify authors of acceptance or rejection of a paper and to record this information in CENTRACK. When the referee’s report is received, record the date of receipt in CENTRACK.

a. Editors must send the final accepted version of the paper to the Providence office. Editors can use CENTRACK to upload the final accepted version of the paper or send it to the Providence office. When using regular mail, include the name of the journal and “Accepted Manuscript” on the envelope. For example:

Proceedings–Accepted Manuscript

Electronic Prepress Department

American Mathematical Society

201 Charles Street

Providence, RI 02904-2294 USA

Following this guideline will direct the manuscript to the proper queue for expeditious processing.

b. If the referee has recommended revision of the paper, the referee’s report or a paraphrase of it should be sent to the author (see Section A, 2.c. Final evaluation) and the editor should keep a copy of it. Editors should remember to enter the received/revised dates in CENTRACK. If the manuscript at this point still does not contain an abstract, subject classification numbers, or proper graphics, remind the author of this fact, and send the appropriate instructions.

c. If the referee has recommended rejection, send the referee’s report (anonymously) to the author along with the manuscript (see Section A, 2.c. Final evaluation.)

5. Miscellaneous. Authors or keyboarders who are preparing articles for submission to the AMS, including electronic and nonelectronic manuscripts, may retrieve an author package from the AMS website through the URL http://www.ams.org/tex/author-info.html or via FTP to ftp.ams.org (login as anonymous and enter username as password). The publication "Mathematics into Type: Updated Edition" may be useful for answering general questions about publishing and has suggestions for authors submitting a manuscript. It is mainly concerned with composition and proofs. Such knowledge is useful to an author while writing a paper in order to provide a good manuscript. This publication may be ordered from the Society from the AMS Bookstore at http://www.ams.org/bookstore.


	Comments: webmaster@ams.org © Copyright 2008, American Mathematical Society Privacy Statement		Search the AMS