PACM Title Assessment and EiC-Provided Statistics

Towards facilitating the assessment of PACM titles, the PACM Steering Committee tasks the Editor-in-Chief of each PACM title with providing comprehensive statistics for the title. A minimum set of statistics is provided below for reference purposes.

In the early years of a PACM title, statistics may be requested each year, with a frequency that will typically decrease as the PACM title becomes more established, but not to decrease below once during the term of an EiC or a minimum of three years.

The goals of this process are two-fold. The first is to ensure the consistency and quality of the PACM series. The second is to build a knowledge repository of solutions that different PACM titles have experimented with towards sharing that knowledge with future PACM titles that may be facing the same questions when considering a transition to a PACM publication model.

Depending on the review model used by the title, gathering those statistics may either be performed directly by the EiC or delegated to Associate Editors, e.g., when they act as Program Chairs. In all cases, it is ultimately the responsibility of the EiC that these statistics be gathered and communicated each year to the PACM SC in a timely fashion.

Note: For PACM titles that publish papers from multiples conferences, statistics are to be provided separately for each conference unless all papers are handled similarly through a common Editorial Board.

Base Statistics:

• Number of yearly submissions and typical number of pages of each submission (specify whether a one-column or two-column format is used).
• Size and structure of the editorial board (program committee) handling the submissions, e.g., is it flat or does it have a hierarchical structure? When multiple conferences are publishing within the PACM title, of particular interest is whether the same, journal-wide, editorial board is handling all papers submitted to the title, or whether a more distributed solution has been retained, i.e., in the form of a structure akin to a program committee with program chairs for each conference.
• Number of reviews for each paper. If this is variable, provide additional information about the review process and the circumstances under which the number of reviews can vary.
• Duration of initial review cycle.
• Outcome of initial review cycle, i.e., number of rejects, direct accepts, minor revisions, and major revisions. For rejects, identify if there are multiple levels with differences in the underlying review process, e.g., quick/desk rejects by the editor vs. reject after full review, and provide numbers for each category. Additionally, provide information regarding constraints imposed on rejected papers when it comes allowing resubmissions.
• Duration of revision cycle (for both minor and major revisions if different). When the duration of the revision cycle is variable, e.g., as in the case of rolling or multiple deadlines, provide both minimum and maximum values, and if possible, indicate your reasons for allowing different deadlines.
• Duration of second review cycle for minor and major revisions.
• Number of minor and major revision papers ultimately accepted.

Of note is the fact that reusing the same conference management system each year offers clear benefits for tracking papers and statistics. PACM titles are, therefore, encouraged to recommend to their conferences that they opt for some continuity in the conference management system they rely on each year. The EiC may then be tasked with helping provide such continuity, e.g., by overseeing a permanent repository that preserves conference information across years.