Instructions for JOS Associate Editors
Editorial Policy
The Editorial Board is collectively responsible for the scientific quality of JOS.
However, Editor-in-Chief (EIC) carries an utmost responsibility.
Every Associate Editor (AE) is encouraged to solicit manuscripts for submission to JOS.
A manuscript is publishable if it contributes something original to the body of
knowledge on a topic. This can be either a new discovery or development or putting
known concepts together in a novel way.
Conversely, reasons for immediate rejection of manuscripts include deficiencies such as
out-of-scope, lack of novelty, lack of relevant references, presentation and language
issues, and obvious lack of effort. Further, the manuscript already having been published
in a peer-reviewed journal, perhaps in another language, is a reason for its immediate
rejection (if not explicitly agreed with the journal in question).
Referee Reports
A typical referee report consists of three parts: the completed checklist, comments for
the editor, and comments for the author.
Anonymity
It is vital that the anonymity of the referee be protected at all times. Under no
circumstances should the AE communicate anything to the author that could reveal the
identity of the referee, unless a referee explicitly wishes to disclose his or her identity.
It is also important that AEs confine any discussions of specific manuscripts and
associated decisions with the group of referees for that specific manuscript, other JOS
editors, or members of the JOS office.
Referees and AEs
The referee reports are meant to aid the AE in his/her editorial decision, but it is the AE
who decides, regardless of the referees’ opinions. Referee reports should be carefully
checked, to avoid mistakes, e. g. referees have misunderstood certain aspects, not
devoted enough time to the task, have views on the editorial policy that differs from
JOS’s, use offensive or insulting language, or have just failed to produce a decent report.
AEs should be careful not to be excessively swayed by referee reports written by
celebrated colleagues.
The Decision Itself
It is important that the AE read the manuscript as soon as possible upon receipt to avoid
delays in writing the decision letter.
533550649
There are five possible decisions for a manuscript: acceptance, minor revision, major
revision, reject and resubmit, and reject.
Acceptance (A)
It is extremely rare that a manuscript is accepted without any kind of request for
revision. Nevertheless, it is possible that a manuscript is so excellent that it can be
accepted as it is. In that case, the AE’s and the referees’ comments for the author are for
the author’s information only.
Minor Revision (MiR)
The manuscript is accepted provided that the author makes a number of specific changes.
These changes are not extensive: minor revisions need to be made in content, structure,
presentation, or formal aspects. These are specific, they are clearly communicated to the
author, and there should be no issues in fulfilling them. However, this decision still
doesn’t automatically imply publication: this depends on whether the author has
successfully addressed the raised issues.
Major Revision (MaR)
The manuscript is accepted provided that the author makes a number of specific changes.
The manuscript ideas are sound, but it requires rewriting, reorganization, cutting, more
detailed explanation of certain points, and so on. The requested changes can be extensive
but must deal with the manuscript per se. The AE must have a clear picture of the
revised manuscript’s final form and this should be communicated to the author. If the AE
has any particular audience or purpose in mind for the manuscript, this should also be
communicated to the author, since it could affect the approach the author takes in his/her
revision. The decision doesn’t automatically imply publication: this depends on whether
the author has successfully addressed the raised issues.
Reject and Resubmit (RR)
The manuscript has merits, but the shortcomings are such that a rewrite would be
considered a new submission and sent to all or some of the referees again. The
manuscript ideas may be interesting and sound, but the requirements for publication are
so extensive that the AE is asking for more research, new material, new analyses or
anything else that would make the manuscript essentially a different piece of work. The
AE might even suggest a few different paths for a new manuscript but there is no
guarantee that the outcome is publishable.
Reject (R)
Rejection is appropriate when the manuscript contains erroneous or doubtful material,
the author is obviously not familiar with the literature on the topic, or the author is
simply not capable of producing an acceptable manuscript. There can be a few good
points in a rejected manuscript, but the bad points outweigh by far any merits. A
manuscript can be rejected also because the AE deems it out of scope. Every manuscript
that the AE or the referees do not want to see again should be rejected. Rejection letters
should be short, polite, and to the point. The referee reports will usually be critical
enough to discourage the author from revising and resubmitting the manuscript.
533550649
The Decision Letter
General
In order to facilitate writing of decision letters, templates for the five decision types are
provided at the portal. The decision letters are different depending on the kind of
decision that is being conveyed to the author. The points below should be viewed in that
perspective.
Decision statement
The decision letter must contain a formal decision statement, that is, “it is the decision of
the Editorial Board to publish…” or “to publish your manuscript, conditional on you
successfully addressing...” or “not to publish your manuscript.” Without a clear decision
statement, an author can read commitment of publication into the decision letter when in
fact no such commitment was intended.
Point out a few good points
Even the worst written, most abhorrent manuscript usually has a few good points. Tell
the author what he or she has done right before you start describing what is done wrong.
If possible, end with something that the author has done well.
There might be good reasons for commending even a terrible manuscript for its good
points. These reasons range from simple courtesy to scientific unbiasedness. Giving
balanced criticism (naming both the strong and the weak points) functions to:
1. Make the criticism more palatable and easier to accept
2. Lend weight and authority to the criticism. Thereby the author is convinced
consideration is taken to the manuscript as a whole, not just to the weak points.
Tone
The decision letter should have a courteous but firm tone and the message should be
clear. The message should be unambiguous and the letter free from vague language.
Sometimes AEs can take ideas or phrases from the referees’ Reports for the Editor, but
please avoid the harsh language that some referees use. Also, please instruct authors that
correspondence regarding their manuscript should be directed to the JOS Editorial
Office.
JOS has a reputation of being a friendly journal. Therefore we abstain from curt phrases
that you might find in some other journals’ correspondence, such as this is nothing new,
a waste of referees’ time, you have clearly not understood, and so on. Part of our policy
is to encourage people who normally do not write scientific papers to do so.
Dealing with Revisions
Minor Revision
When a Minor Revision manuscript has been revised, the revision is sent to the AE who
checks that changes requested in the decision letter have been carried out. If so, the AE
drafts an acceptance decision letter. If not, the AE requests another revision. A Minor
Revision in one round carries no promise of acceptance in next round.
533550649
Major Revision
When a Major Revision manuscript has been revised, the revision is sent to the AE who
checks that the changes requested in the decision letter have been carried out. The AE
may opt, at this stage, to request that Production Manager sends the revised manuscript
for a new round of peer reviewing. If changes requested in the decision letter have been
carried out, the AE drafts an acceptance decision letter. If not, the AE requests another
revision, assigning the manuscript the same or higher (MiR) status. However, repeated
major revisions should be avoided – if the author repeatedly fails to produce a
publishable manuscript, it can be rejected in spite of looking promising at first.
Reject and Resubmit
When a Reject and Resubmit manuscript is revised and resubmitted, it is sent to the
original referees. The AE makes a new decision based on the results of the new referee
round. If the revision cannot be reclassified as an acceptance or a minor or major
revision, the AE should be very restrictive when it comes to further encouraging the
author by suggesting additional revisions. Repeated reject and resubmit should be
avoided.
Reject
From time to time authors who have been sent rejection letters revise and resubmit
anyway. In those cases the manuscript is treated as an entirely new submission.
Timeliness
It is important that the AE reaches a decision shortly after the sufficient number of
referee reports becomes available. If an AE feels pressed for time, he or she should
notify the Production Manager so that the manuscript might be reassigned or at least the
author informed. However, to avoid this situation, AE should notify the JOS office when
overloaded with manuscripts or other commitments, so that JOS does not assign new
manuscripts to the AE in that period. This will lead to a timelier JOS peer review.
The Manuscript
Format
Each manuscript should have a title page, key words, an abstract, and the author’s name,
affiliation, and mailing addresses. When there are multiple authors, the name of the
corresponding author should be provided.
The manuscript’s format and references should follow the JOS’s style as described in
Information for Authors. AEs should be well acquainted with JOS’s style guide.
All manuscripts must be double-spaced throughout, including abstract and references.
JOS discourages use of footnotes, encouraging authors to either incorporate them in the
text or drop them altogether.
533550649
Mathematical Manuscripts
At an early stage, the AE should make sure that the author is using the simplest
mathematical notation possible. This sounds like a truism, but many authors have a
tendency to use more elaborate notation than is necessary and are unaware that their
formulas are overly embellished. It is not uncommon that terminology is inconsistent
throughout the manuscript, for instance when several authors are involved.
Enforced Standard Terminology
Do not let authors make up terms for concepts that already have names. Using standard
terminology makes the author’s ideas readily accessible and helps the manuscript reach
its maximal audience.
533550649
JOS Editorial office
jos@scb.se
Journal of Official Statistics
Statistics Sweden
Box 24 300
SE 104 51 Stockholm, SWEDEN
533550649
Co-Editors-in- Chief
Ingegerd Jansson
Boris Lorenc
ingegerd.jansson@scb.se
boris.lorenc@scb.se
Production Manager
Susanna Emanuelsson
susanna.emanuelsson@scb.se