Information for Reviewers

Guidelines

TACCESS is a fully peer-reviewed journal. Each paper will receive no less than three reviews, ideally four.

Papers should satisfy certain minimum criteria before even being considered, including the following:

• There should be a comprehensive related work section which covers a representative selection of work in the field, in addition to specifically comparing the authors' own work against these
• There should be a solid evaluation section
• There should not be an excessive number of self-references
• There should be no text largely duplicated from previously-published papers.

TACCESS will consider extended versions of conference papers for publication; however, authors of such papers must make substantial enhancements to the conference versions and must alert the Editors that the paper is an extended version, and include a copy of the earlier publication as well as a letter indicating the enhancements the authors have made to the earlier publication.

Some papers can be exempted from some conditions where, say, an evaluation is perhaps not relevant, but in general most good papers will have most of these characteristics. Authors will be given advice about the expected style of the paper in the submission guidelines.

The Review Form

Please use the review form, and send to the Editor-in-Chief in charge of the submission.

In your review, please endeavor to give the authors useful criticisms which could help them improve their papers. Criticisms can often be difficult to accept, and should be given as courteously as possible, while still remaining useful.

The Review Process

TACCESS aims to return responses to authors within three months of submission. The review process is as follows:

1. Invitation sent to the reviewer to review the manuscript
2. Reviewer should confirm agreement to review paper to the Editor-in-Chief
3. Editor-in-Chief will send the full manuscript to the reviewer. If the submission is an enhanced version of a previously published conference paper, the reviewer should also receive a copy or accessible link to the conference paper as well as a letter from the authors describing the enhancements that they have made to the conference paper.
4. Reviewers should return their reviews, using the review form, to the Editor-in-Chief. This review should ideally be completed within six weeks of receiving the manuscript to review.