Manuscript Handling Appeals
Reviewed April 2018
ACM as a scientific publisher must make informed judgments about the correctness and relevance of manuscripts under consideration for publication. ACM relies on qualified volunteers to review manuscripts and serve on editorial boards and program committees to make these editorial decisions and to provide feedback to authors. In the vast majority of cases, this process works smoothly.
Should an author feel that the process was implemented incorrectly, the author should first follow the stated appeal procedure of the involved publication. If the concern is not resolved, the author may appeal the decision to the Publications Board Chair, whose decision can then, at the author's discretion, be appealed to the President of the ACM. The decision of the President is final.
At each stage of the appeal, the relevant ACM representative can at their discretion handle the appeal directly, or delegate this to an ad hoc committee named by the representative. The members of the ad hoc committee should not have any direct connection with either the manuscript under question or the associated publication. The decision by the representative, along with an explanation of the decision process, shall be communicated to the appealer and other involved parties in writing within a reasonable time frame.
ACM accords the editor-in-chief or program chair final rights with regard to content. ACM stands behind the EiCs and program chairs on technical matters; appeals should based on serious violations of due process or ethical standards.
Volunteers will be assumed to have acted in an appropriate and professional manner unless and until it is shown through an investigation to be otherwise. ACM representatives will keep involved volunteers appraised of the process, and will always be cognizant that such investigations are difficult for all concerned.
Written by leading domain experts for software engineers, ACM Case Studies provide an in-depth look at how software teams overcome specific challenges by implementing new technologies, adopting new practices, or a combination of both. Often through first-hand accounts, these pieces explore what the challenges were, the tools and techniques that were used to combat them, and the solution that was achieved.
Why I Belong to ACM
Hear from Bryan Cantrill, vice president of engineering at Joyent, Ben Fried chief information officer at Google, and Theo Schlossnagle, OmniTI founder on why they are members of ACM.
ACM Queue’s “Research for Practice” consistently serves up expert-curated guides to the best of computing research, and relates these breakthroughs to the challenges that software engineers face every day. This installment of RfP is by Anna Wiedemann, Nicole Forsgren, Manuel Wiesche, Heiko Gewald, and Helmut Krcmar. Titled “The DevOps Phenomenon,” this RfP gives an overview of stories from across the industry about software organizations overcoming the early hurdles of adopting DevOps practices, and coming out on the other side with tighter integration between their software and operations teams, faster delivery times for new software features, and achieving a higher level of stability.