Check a submission before review

A reviewer’s time is the scarcest thing a conference or journal has. Five minutes of checking by an editor, before anybody is asked to read, saves hours of it. It also tells authors early when something is missing, while it is still easy for them to fix.

This page is advice. Quorum Press does not make these choices for you.

The five-minute check

Open the submission from the editorial board. The work is on the right. The panels on the left hold what you need.

Ask	Look at	If the answer is no
Does it fit the call?	The title, the abstract and the track.	Send it back without review, and say where it might fit.
Is it the kind it says it is?	The kind beside the tracking code, and What this is.	Ask the authors, or change the kind. A full paper sent as an abstract is reviewed as the wrong thing.
Is it complete?	The abstract, the text, the figures and tables, the references.	Send it back with a list of what is missing.
Can it be read?	The first paragraph and the last.	Send it back and ask for a careful reading of the language. Do not ask reviewers to guess the meaning.
Are the authors written properly?	Authors: each name, affiliation and email.	Usually you can put it right yourself. See below.
Is it sent once?	The note about the same work, when the board shows one.	See the same work sent more than once.
Does it keep the review blind?	In a call that reviews without names: the text, the acknowledgments, the file of a poster.	Send it back and ask the authors to take their names out of the text.

Quorum Press already refuses a submission that lacks the basics for its kind, such as an abstract that is too short or a full paper with no references. What reaches you has passed those. What is left needs a person.

How the authors are written

You can tell a lot about the care taken over a submission from how its authors are written. Look under Authors.

Look for	Good	Deserves a second look
Names	Full names, as they would be printed: Amara N. Okafor.	All capitals, initials only, a title inside the name (DR. A. OKAFOR), or several people typed into one field.
Affiliations	An institution, with its town and country.	A department alone, an abbreviation only the authors know, or nothing.
Email addresses	One address for each author, their own. An address at the institution they name is the strongest sign that they belong to it.	The same address for every author, or an address that does not work.
The number of authors	The people who did the work.	A full paper that reports a large study under one name. Ask who else took part, and whether they agreed to be left out.
ORCID iD	Given for at least the corresponding author.	Not a fault if missing. It helps you tell two people with the same name apart.

Read these signs with care:

• A personal email address is not a fault. Many good researchers have no address at an institution, or change institutions often. It becomes worth a question only when the affiliation is also unclear.
• A single author is not a fault. Reviews, essays and much of the humanities are written alone. It is unusual for a laboratory or field study.
• Careless writing of names is not careless research. It is common where authors are new to publishing. Put it right and send the work on.
• Never judge by the name of the institution or the country. Judge what was sent.

Most of these you can correct in one step without writing to anybody. Open Put right on the submission, or do the whole call at once on the proofing page.

Signs in the work itself

Sign	What it may mean
The title promises more than the abstract reports.	The work is not finished, or the abstract was written before the results.
The results give no numbers.	Nothing was measured yet.
No references, or none from the last ten years.	The authors have not read what is already known.
The text is the same as another submission’s.	Sent twice, or copied. Compare the two before you do anything.
The abstract and the text are about different things.	The wrong file was attached. Ask.
It reads like an advertisement.	It may not be research at all.

One sign is a question to ask. Several together are a reason to send the work back.

Then choose

What you found	What to do
It fits, it is complete, and you can follow it.	Assign reviewers.
It is sound, and the names or affiliations are untidy.	Put them right, then assign reviewers. Do not hold up the review for this.
Something is missing that the authors can supply.	Send it back without review, with a list. They fix it and send it again.
It does not belong in this call.	Send it back without review, and say so kindly.
You doubt who the authors are, or whether it was sent elsewhere.	Put it on hold under If something is wrong, and write to the authors with Message the authors.
You have read it and it is not good enough.	That is a judgment of the work. Record a decision, or have it reviewed. Do not send it back as if it had not been read.

Sending back is not rejecting. No decision is recorded, the authors keep the submission and its tracking code, and they can send it again.

Writing the reason

The authors read your reason exactly as you write it. A good one says what is wrong, where, and what would put it right.

The abstract reports the aim and the method but no results. This call accepts completed work only. Please add what you found, with the main numbers, and send it again before 30 June.

This work is on medical imaging. The call is for agricultural engineering, so it cannot be reviewed fairly here. It may suit a conference on biomedical engineering.

Avoid a reason that the authors cannot act on, such as “not suitable” or “poor quality”.

Do it soon

Check each submission within a few days of its arrival. An author who waits six weeks to learn that a section was missing has lost six weeks. On the board, Needs reviewers lists what is waiting for this check.

Checklist

• It fits the call and the track.
• It is the right kind, and complete for that kind.
• The authors, affiliations and emails are written properly, or I have put them right.
• It is not the same work sent twice.
• Where the call reviews without names, the text does not name the authors.
• I have either assigned reviewers or sent it back with a reason the authors can act on.