Article Management System Information for editors, board members and reviewers.
Our independent Academic Advisory & Editorial Board and panel of subject specialists are seated and named. We are still appointing editors for the journals hosted on the platform, and adding board members beyond computing and engineering. This page sets out what each role involves, what we ask of you, and what we commit to in return — before you are asked to say yes to anything.
Express your interest Read our governanceThey are not the same job, and we do not blur them.
Each role has its own remit, workload, and limits of authority. Where a role has no authority over something, we say so here rather than let you discover it later.
Academic Advisory & Editorial Board
Senior scholars who read our policies before they are issued and advise on the ethics cases our editorial office refers up. The board is advisory and independent: it does not manage the company, and it does not decide the fate of any individual paper.
Commitment: A small number of policy reviews a year, plus referred cases as they arise. Correspondence-based; no fixed meeting schedule is imposed on you.
Subject specialist
Faculty and industry experts who review applications from conferences and journals that want to publish on the platform — the scope, the editorial team, the review process proposed — and recommend approval, conditions, or refusal.
Commitment: Occasional, and only in your own field. This is the role that keeps weak venues off the platform, so it is the one we screen hardest for.
Editor-in-Chief of a journal
Sets a journal's scope, appoints its editorial board, assigns handling editors, and owns the final decision on every paper in that journal. The Editor-in-Chief is named publicly on the journal's own page.
Commitment: Continuous while the journal is active. We do not appoint an Editor-in-Chief who cannot give the role real time.
Handling editor & reviewer
Handling editors run a paper through its review rounds and recommend a decision; reviewers assess the work itself. Both see their assignments, deadlines, and the author's response to earlier rounds in one console.
Commitment: Per assignment. You choose what you accept, and you see the deadline before you accept it.
Five things, all of them ordinary
Declare your interests — employment, funding, editorial roles elsewhere — and they are recorded and published. Step aside on any matter touching your own work, institution, or co-authors. Judge on scholarly grounds alone. Keep what you review confidential. And hold to the same published standards as every other venue on the platform. Nothing here is unusual for a scholarly board; we write it down because a role accepted on a vague understanding is the one that goes wrong.
The tools, and the written standards to apply them against
You should not have to invent a process. Ours is published, versioned, and the same for every venue — the Publishing Rule Book and the Conference Organizer Handbook.
An editor's own dashboard puts assignments, deadlines, and the pipeline in one place — revised files open beside the author's point-by-point response. And every assignment, recommendation, and decision is recorded against the paper, so if a question is raised in three years, the record answers it rather than somebody's memory of an email.
“On questions of research ethics and academic quality, our editors and board advise freely. A decision on a specific paper is made on scholarly grounds through peer review — never because a fee was paid.”
Four steps, and you can stop at any of them
Board and specialist roles are unpaid, as is standard for scholarly advisory bodies — being paid by the company would compromise the independence the role exists to provide.
If the standards read right to you, we'd like to hear from you.
Read the governance page first — if you would not be comfortable having your name attached to what it says, this is not the right board for you, and we would rather you decided that now.
Express your interest Read our governance