We would like to thank the reviewers for their critical contribution to the IEEE Control Systems Letters and the broader scientific community.
The L-CSS is an archival technical journal, publishing high-quality brief papers containing innovative ideas about the theory, design, and applications of all aspects of control engineering. Reviewers are asked to evaluate both the quality of the technical contribution and the quality of the exposition.
Technical contribution. To be acceptable for publication, the manuscript must describe a new, previously unpublished, and interesting contribution to control and system theory. It is important to emphasize that reviewers should evaluate whether the contribution is interesting and potentially relevant to answering a fundamental question for the advancement either of some theoretical aspect or of the application domain of control systems. Correctness of the paper results is mandatory, but does not necessarily ensure the paper acceptance. Being able to solve a problem with correct mathematics does not necessarily imply that the problem is worth solving.
Exposition. The quality of the exposition is an important criterion of a reviewer's evaluation. The reviewer should ask a number of questions. Is the paper readable? Are all concepts clearly explained? Is all notation and terminology clearly defined before it is used? Are there places where more detailed explanations are needed? Are there parts of the paper that can be made more concise or technical arguments that can be shortened? Is the importance of the problem sufficiently stressed? Is the paper sufficiently self-contained and accessible to non-experts in the narrow technical subfield? Is the paper written in proper English?
The reviewer should make an effort to provide detailed guidance to the Author(s) to address such exposition shortcomings. We encourage reviewers to read the information provided to Authors which clarifies policies on overlap with other published work.
Reviewers should feel free to communicate with the Associate Editor and seek further guidance when needed. Any feedback or suggestions on the review process are welcome. Such feedback should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Office.
Timing. The L-CSS aims at ensuring rapid dissemination of the most recent results in the broad field of Systems and Control. The Letters guarantees a final decision within 5 months from submission, with no exceptions. When the CDC Option has been selected by the Authors, L-CSS needs to comply also with Conference deadlines. To provide a service with such high standards, the Editorial Board and the Reviewers involved in the review process must comply with tight and demanding constraints. As a Reviewer, you will have to observe the following strict deadlines:
- Four weeks (28 days) from reception of original manuscript to review
- Two weeks (14 days) from reception of a revised manuscript to re-review
Decision about the manuscript. The manuscript review process is handled by an Associate Editor, who prepares a report and makes a recommendation on the basis of peer reviews. The final decision on publication, accepting or modifying this recommendation, is taken by the Senior Editor handling the paper and by the Editor-in-Chief. The review process is single-blind: reviewers are never known to the Authors. Also, the names of the Associate Editors handling the review processes are not disclosed to the Authors, who will only interact with the Senior Editors assigned to the papers.
Reviewing a paper submitted to L-CSS with CDC option. If a paper has been submitted with CDC option, the reports collected during the first round of review will be also sent to the CDC Program Committee. The Program Committee will use the reviews, the report and recommendation of the Associate Editor to decide whether the manuscript can be included in the Conference program. The decision about the paper presentation at CDC is completely independent of the decisions to be taken along the further path toward publication on the L-CSS, which may include re-review of a revised version.
Reviewers providing comments on a submission with CDC option will be asked for both an "Overall Recommendation" and a "Recommendation for Conference". The former can be either Accept, Reject, or Revise and Resubmit. The Conference Recommendation is usually given in terms of a letter (A, B, C, D, U) . As a rule of thumb, it is considered that papers rated C or less will normally be in the Reject group.