Evolutionary Computation


Contact: ecj@napier.ac.uk

Home ^page | Menu for authors | Reviewers | Editors | Administration |  

ECJ submission and review system

Welcome to the Evolutionary Computation paper submission and review Web site.

Authors are welcome to submit their work directly here, as no other submission method is accepted. Please read the guidelines for authors before submitting your work.

Evolutionary Computation is an MIT Press Journal, and all official information can be found on the official MIT Press Web site.
This Web site has been set up by Evolutionary Computation Editorial Board, and MIT Press can be made responsible neither for the underlying software nor for the contents of this Web site.
  • Authors: Submit a paper (see Submission instructions below, and check the guidelines for authors).
  • Authors: Check the status, submit a revised version, etc, of an already-submitted paper. You will need at least the paper Id (and you can get the password by e-mail if you lost it).
  • Reviewers: Enter your review(s), comments and recommendation(s) for paper(s) you have accepted to review.
    Your reviewer login is your e-mail address, and you can get your password by e-mail if you lost it.
  • Action editors: Manage the review process for the papers you have been assigned.
    Again, your editor login is your e-mail, and you can get your password by e-mail if you lost it.
Below you will find some Submission Instructions, a brief description of the Review Process, and how we would like it to actually work.

Paper submission

  • Before considering submitting your work to Evolutionary Computation, please read carefully the guidelines for authors.
  • As a rule, papers should be 8,000 to 12,000 words in length (maximum of 30 pages in the Evolutionary Computation LaTeX style, see below). However, short papers, so-called Letters, are also considered.
  • Papers must be prepared using LaTeX and submitted as pdf file (or alternatively as postscript) with all fonts embedded.
  • You will find all style files, including the ecj.sty style used to typeset the paper, at http://ecj.napier.ac.uk/Formats/

Review process

What happens after a paper has been submitted?
  • After first vetting, the Editor in Chief sends it to an Action Editor (most likely one of the Associate Editors if they are not already too busy).
  • The Action Editor finds independent reviewers (usually at least 3). Most likely again, one of them is a member of the Editorial Board
  • When all reviewers have entered their review in the system, the Action Editor can either make a recommendation to the Editor in Chief, based on the reviews and his/her own opinion, or start a discussion among the reviewers if there is some disagreement. The discussion involves all reviewers, the Action Editor and the Editor in Chief.
  • After an agreed decision have been reached, the authors are notified by the Editor in Chief or the Action Editor.
  • The possible decisions are
    • Accept: the paper can be published as it is now (except maybe for some typos).
    • Accept with minor revisions: the paper will have to be slightly revised following the reviewers' comments, but there will not be any additional round of review, only the Action Editor and/or the Editor in Chief will check the modifications.
    • Revise and resubmit: it is agreed that the topic is worth publishing, but the paper requires large revisions before it can actually be published.
      The revised paper will not be considered as a completely new submission, though: if a revised version is sent within 6 months, it will most probably be handled by the same Action Editor.
    • Reject: the paper is out of scope, or does not contain any significant contribution, or may be simply too difficult to understand. In any case, the same work should not be resubmitted without a very large amount of work.
  • Last but not least, it is our goal that the whole review process does not take more than 3 months before the decision is sent to the authors.

Do not hesitate to send your comments and suggestions about this site, we know there is room for improvement. And please be patient: there is no big organization behind the scene here, just a couple of people donating their time to make such system available to everybody - and let us heartily thank here Philippe Rigaux, the creator of original myreview system, and Jérôme Garnier, who has programmed most of the Journal version of myreview. The current version is the result of a revision done by Daniel Nisandzic in Summer 2011.

Powered by

Paper submission system