enter search term and/or author name
The Editors-in-Chief make the final Accept/Reject decision on all papers. Sometimes, the Editors-in-Chief reject papers without assigning AE's for the following reasons:
If an author has concerns about how their paper was handled, that author should first bring those concerns to the Editor-in-chief who made the decision, who will consult with the Associate Editor who handled the processing of the paper. If the concerns are not addressed, the author should bring the concerns to the other Editor-in-Chief, who will re-examine the materials, and both EICs will then confer to make the final editorial decision.
If the concerns are still not adequately addressed then the author may appeal to the Chair of the
New options for ACM authors to manage rights and permissions for their work: ACM introduces a new publishing license agreement, an updated copyright transfer agreement, and a new author-pays option which allows for perpetual open access through the ACM Digital Library. For more information, visit the ACM Author Rights webpage at
ACM ToMPECS has the following Conflict of Interest policy for papers submitted by an Editor-in-Chief. If one of the EiCs has a conflict with a paper but is not an author, the other EiC will assign an associate editor who will then select reviewers, obtain the reviews, and make a decision about the paper, perhaps in consultation with other associate editors. If both EiC's have a conflict of interest with a paper, Associate Editor "NAME" will serve as Alternate Interim Chief Editor ("Alice" in the text below) for papers submitted by the EiC.
ACM conflict of interest policy for papers submitted by an EiC
The purpose of this policy is to address the conflict-of-interest (COI) that arises when an editor-in-chief (EiC) of an ACM journal is an author of a paper submitted to that journal. There are other COI issues that arise in handling papers for a journal. The scope of this policy is, however, strictly limited to the specific issue of EiC authored papers.
ACM has traditionally given its EiCs considerable freedom in establishing policy for each journal. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work well for the diverse computing disciplines addressed by different ACM journals. This policy therefore establishes a minimum baseline that all ACM journals should follow. Each journal can, in addition, establish additional requirements, at discretion of the journal's EiC.
ACM does permit an EiC to be an author of a paper in the EiC's journal. Outright prohibition of EiC authorship is considered too severe for at least three reasons. First, it can unduly penalize the EiC's co-authors. In several computing disciplines the ACM Transactions is the premier, and sometimes the sole high quality, archival research publication. A strict prohibition will impact the EiC's co-authors especially if they are just starting their research careers. Second, it can prevent high-quality papers from appearing in ACM journals. ACM's stated mission is to be the publisher of choice. Good work should be evaluated on its merits and not on authorship. Third, it can be a disincentive for leading researchers to serve as EiC, especially insofar as this prohibition would affect co-authors particularly graduate students. Many ACM Conferences do not permit the Program Chair to submit papers to the Conference. The three arguments given above apply with some force to ACM Conferences also. However, the multi-year terms of EiCs makes a more compelling case for journals than for conferences.