International C2 Journal: Issues
Peer Reviewer Information Center
The International C2 Journal is one of the latest CCRP endeavors. This internationally directed and peer reviewed publication presents articles written by authors from all over the world in many diverse fields of Command and Control such as systems, human factors, experimentation, and operations. The Journal will also feature Special Issues consisting of carefully prepared papers all designed to address a single topic or theme.
NOTE: Reviews should be constructive in nature, focused on helping authors to improve the quality of their papers, as well as helping the editors to assess the publication potential of the papers.
Conduct of the Reviewer
To guarantee fairness to the author(s), the reviewer for a submission to the IC2J should abide by a number of guidelines including, but not limited to, the following:
- Complete and submit the Journal Evaluation form within the allotted time.
- Provide sound, constructive reviews to help authors improve the quality of their papers and to help the editors assess the publication potential of each submission.
- Keep manuscripts and the ideas reflected within them private and confidential,
- Inform the Editor, Guest Editor, and/or Publications Coordinator if there are any conflicts of interest involved in reviewing a particular paper.
Reviewer Do's and Don'ts
Reviewers should:
- Keep their review objective.
- Identify and note the type of paper (research, empirical survey, or literature review).
- Pay attention to organization and technical content by commenting on the paper's technical significance and accuracy.
- Comment on the appropriateness of the topic, methods, literature review, research design, data analyses, results, and conclusions.
- Comment on whether or not the article demonstrates logic and consistency throughout.
- Recognize that IC2J has Text Formatting Requirements (i.e., word limit 5,000 etc.)
- Provide constructive feedback and comments, suggest specific improvements, and identify specific areas that can be removed or revised to help the authors improve the quality of their manuscripts
- Recommend accepting only those articles that are written is in a scholarly, professional, formal tone; however, articles should also appeal to a broad technical and academic audience and not be laden with jargon or acronyms familiar only to a niche set of specialists.
- If unsure whether to reject a manuscript or recommend a major revision, please give the authors the opportunity and guidance to make revisions.
- Recommend rejecting papers that require extensive revisions, papers with trivial or insignificant results and minor contributions to the subject area (even if well-written).
- Look at the references for appropriateness. As outlined in our Author Center, All in-text references are to utilize the Chicago Manual of Style “Author-Date” format (e.g., Alberts 2003, 17-19). A list of references must be included at the end of the article. Please refer to the Chicago Manual of Style Online Citation Guide for further information on reference formatting.
- Contact the Publications Coordinator at any time if they have a question or concern.
Reviewers should not:
- Review articles they find personally objectionable.
- Identify themselves or their own work.
- Include personal comments and biases about the author or subject matter.
- Reject papers that require simple reorganization.
- Reject papers without trying to help the authors identify key points and ways to improve the quality and focus of their submission. The IC2J is specifically intended to support the development of new approaches to command and control, organization, doctrine, and systems.
Submission Requirements
Concurrent Submission: We do NOT allow submission to more than one publication at one time. If we determine that a manuscript has been submitted to another publication before IC2J’s review process is completed, we will automatically reject that manuscript.
Duplicate Submissions: We do NOT accept duplicate submissions of manuscripts.Authors should not try to submit a modified version of manuscripts that are already in the system as a new submission. Identical submissions will be immediately rejected.
Preliminary/Conference Version(s): Articles presented in previous technical meetings (CCRP or others) or conferences may be considered for publication in the IC2J. Any such papers should present material of lasting interest, describing an original contribution to the field. The paper(s) should emphasize advancements in knowledge rather than specific products or systems. The reviewer should check the submission to determine whether a sufficient amount of new material has been added to warrant publication in IC2J. New results are not required, but the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, etc., of the conference manuscript.
Text-Formatting Requirements: All submissions must be Microsoft Word documents with 1” margins in Times New Roman, 12 pt fonts. All files will be converted to a PDF prior to publication.
Articles submitted to IC2J should not exceed 5,000 words, excluding references, appendices, statistical tables and illustrative matter. Each submission should have a title page containing the title and the names, affiliations, and contact information for all coauthors. If acronyms must be used, each one should be defined on its first appearance.
Please refer to the Author Information Center for detailed information on the IC2J's requirements for both the form and content of all submissions.
Peer-Reviewer Guidelines
The following guidelines coincide with the Journal Evaluation Form.
1. Is the article topic appropriate for the Journal?
This Journal is specifically intended to support the development of new approaches to command and control, organization, doctrine, and systems. It is important to note that, by using the term command and control (C2), the Journal does not limit its focus to either the Military or the kinds of hierarchical command structures associated generally with military organizations. Rather, the Journal recognizes the importance of scholarship in academic fields such as management, organization, sociology, cognitive psychology, behavioral decision making, complex adaptive systems, strategy and others. It welcomes both theoretical and empirical research, using analytical, computational, laboratory, and field research methods, provided that such methods are well accepted within the academy and appropriate for the research questions being addressed.
2. Is the article intellectually stimulating?
All Journal articles should raise new and interesting questions, or explore problems using unique and thoughtful methods. Each article should be as engaging as it is substantive and original.
3. Is the literature review adequate/appropriate?
All Journal articles must be firmly grounded in the existing literature, as appropriate. Authors are responsible for demonstrating a broad understanding of their subject, as proven by their references, and contributing to the state of knowledge in a manner that clearly builds upon current knowledge.
4. Is the research design adequate/appropriate?
All Journal articles describing a program of research must clearly explain the purpose, design, and execution of their research, and in doing so, they must demonstrate why their actions represent best practice.
5. Is the data analysis adequate/appropriate?
All Journal articles describing a program of research must clearly explain the purpose, design, and execution of the data analysis, demonstrating a firm grasp of statistics and any other disciplines required to reach scientifically valid conclusions.
6. Are the conclusions reasonable?
All Journal articles describing a program of research must clearly demonstrate a logical progression from data through analysis to conclusions. Conclusions must never arise from assumptions or untested assertions.
7. Does the article advance the state of knowledge?
While all articles must be well-written and represent scientifically valid research, they must do more than present information that is true; they must present information that is, in some aspect, original. It is insufficient for an article to merely describe a concept or system. The article must clearly demonstrate how it contributes some new knowledge to the existing literature.
8. Is the article logical and consistent?
All Journal articles must demonstrate an internal logic and consistency throughout. At no time should a general reader feel lost or confused by the article’s rhetoric, language, or structure.
9. Is the article’s argument persuasive?
All Journal articles, and particularly theoretical ones, must make persuasive arguments. This requires not only a thorough literature review in support of the proposed concept, but also a thorough treatment of counter-arguments and alternative theories or methods.
10. Is the writing clear and readable?
All Journal articles must be written in a scholarly, professional, formal tone; however, articles should be written to appeal to a broad technical and academic audience and not laden with jargon or acronyms familiar only to a niche set of specialists.
All Articles submitted for publication will be subjected to rigorous, double-blind peer review (reviewers are anonymous to the authors, and vice versa) by active and publishing scholars selected for their knowledge and contributions, both inside and outside of the area(s) of study addressed in the article.
Reviews should be constructive in nature, focused on helping authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts, as well as helping the editors to assess the publication potential of the papers. If you rate any aspect of an article below 3 (Neutral), we ask that you use explain your rating and address the authors about their submission in the “Comments to the Authors” section of the Journal Evaluation Form.
We hope that reviewers can submit their review within the given time frame assigned by the Publications Coordinator, ideally within 2 – 4 weeks. Your prompt action is greatly appreciated by the Editorial Board as well as the authors who are very anxious to know the outcome of the peer review process. Timely reviewer participation is integral to helping us meet our goals.
We are committed to a professional, reasonable and timely review of all submissions in order to present the highest quality articles and maintain our reputation for quality and integrity. We appreciate the reviewers' willingness to volunteer their time and expertise on behalf of global C2 community. While the peer reviews are used as the basis for acceptance and content revisions, members of the CCRP and the Editor-in-Chief make the final decision regarding publication.
The Recommendation Process
Recommendations should fall into the following categories:
Accept
An accept decision means the submission is considered appropriate and timely for the IC2J; it contributes to the state of the science, art, and practice of C2; and thus it advances the state of knowledge and research.
Even though the recommendation is to Accept the article for publication, ALL SUBMISSIONS MUST STILL COMPLETE THE 2ND ROUND OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS. If the outcome of the 2nd round review is to accept the submission, please keep in mind that the EIC & CCRP still make the final decision.
Minor Revisions
A Minor revision should only be used for papers that have a clear contribution and are considered worthy of publication pending the successful completion of a few minor revisions. Reviewers’ comments are shared with the author and the author is asked to respond to these and make the appropriate changes. The GE and the EIC review the revised manuscript to ensure that the suggestions have been appropriately addressed. GEs are always encouraged to assist the authors with making the revisions
Request Major Revisions
A major revision means that the manuscript is considered to have potential for publication; however more extensive revisions are required before further consideration. We strongly encourage GEs to assist the authors in making revisions to specifically address the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Authors are requested to submit a revised draft, but informed that these revisions do not guarantee acceptance at a later date.
While there is no rule against a second-round major revision, we strongly advise against it, if a major overhaul is required before it can be considered for publication. Instead, we may recommend rejecting the paper to allow the author(s) an unlimited amount of time to thoroughly revise and resubmit the paper without significantly delaying publication of the entire issue.
Reject
A reject decision means the paper is not suitable for publication in the IC2J. GEs MAY NOT Reject articles outright. Instead, we ask that GEs communicate with the Publications Coordinator first and share any concerns/recommendations.
Administrative Reject
The GE rejects the paper without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies or failure to follow the submission guidelines.
Out of Scope
This rating is used when the submission does not fall within the IC2J’s scope and/or topic of interest. We ask the editor/guest editor consider referring the manuscript to the EIC for "nontheme" issues or suggest a more suitable journal for submission. In addition, the editor might also suggest that papers be submitted to the annual ICCRTS symposium.
Contact Us
If you wish to become a peer reviewer, or if you have any questions, please contact the Publications Coordinator