Table of Contents
ACM TKDD recognizes that
reviewing is a service to the profession.
The Rights and Responsibilities in ACM Publishing lists an extensive
collection of rights that ACM provides its reviewers, underscoring ACM's
commitment to those who play a critical role in ensuring quality in its
publications. ACM TKDD guarantees all of those rights, and extends
some of them. Specifically, reviewers can expect ACM TKDD to do the
- Not ask the
referees to provide reviews for submissions that do not satisfy stated
publication requirements, or are obviously inappropriate for the
publication. The TKDD Editor-in-Chief checks every submission to
ensure that it satisfies
the stated publication requirements and is appropriate, and desk
rejects those that are inappropriate.
- Request the
referees to review only submissions for which the editor feels they have
- Strive to not
overload referees with TKDD reviews.
- Not expect the
referees to make up for delays introduced by other participants in the
- Ask the referees if
they are willing to review before the submission is sent to them. The
paper's abstract and the deadline for the review will accompany this
- Recognize that the
reviewers have the right to decline a requested review, both before and
after they have been sent a manuscript.
- Allow a reasonable
time for a review, at least two months for an initial formal review.
- Maintain anonymity
of reviews. TKDD employs single-blind reviewing. The identity of
reviewers will not be revealed to the authors or to the other reviewers.
- Acknowledge their
efforts in the publication process, while maintaining confidentiality of
which submissions they reviewed.
- Inform them of the
editorial decisions for the submission, including the author-visible
portion of reviews. Sending reviewers all the reviews allows them to see
what the other reviewers thought of the manuscript and allows them to
calibrate future reviews.
- Tell them who will
see the reviews. The author-visible portion of reviews as well as the
final editorial decision will be provided to the contact author as well as
to the reviewers once an editorial decision has been made. No one else
will be shown the reviews.
- Recognize that
reviewers own the copyright for their reviews.
There are some provisos and exceptions
for these policies. Informal reviews and reviews of revised manuscripts can
be quicker than two months. Revised papers should be reviewed by the same
referees, and this review will probably occur within the twelve months, but
that will just extend the required interval before the next review.
ACM TKDD recognizes that
reviewing is a service to the profession; this publication endeavors to
treat reviewers with courtesy and respect. The TKDD web site
lists many guarantees that TKDD provides reviewers.
Papers for the ACM Transactions on
Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) must be of high quality and fall
scope of the journal. There are four main ingredients to an acceptable
- The technical
quality is high.
- The relevance to
significant computations is high.
- Interest and
novelty is high.
- The presentation is
Few papers excel in all of these, but a
substandard level in any is sufficient ground for rejection. Many papers
require substantial revisions before acceptance, and reviewers should not
hesitate to recommend that a paper be rejected pending changes that are
required for completeness, correctness, or to substantially improve clarity.
The following is a list of other
considerations to be taken into account when reviewing a submission.
will publish outstanding papers which are "major value-added extensions"
of papers previously published in conferences; that is, TKDD will
not automatically reject papers that are substantial extensions of
previously published conference papers. These papers will go through the
normal review process.
manuscript should thoroughly consolidate the material, should extend it to
be broader, and should more carefully cover related research. It should have
at least 30% new material. The new material should be content material, not
just the addition of proofs or a few more performance figures. This provides
an opportunity to describe the novel approach in more depth, to consider the
alternatives more comprehensively, and to delve into some of the issues
listed in the other paper as future work.
will support a closer fusion of theory and systems by strongly encouraging
the authors of theory papers to indicate applications and implementation
considerations/ consequences, and the authors of systems papers to
indicate the use of existing theoretical results and to point to possible
theoretical research issues. Please determine if the paper you review
satisfies this criterion, and, if it does not, make notes for the authors
and editor as to how the paper may be revised to include this aspect in
the scope of discussion.
would like to make papers it publishes easier to read. TKDD
strongly encourages authors to include examples where appropriate and to
make greater efforts to target their presentation to a broader audience
than research specialists working in the topical areas of the papers.
Please determine if the paper is readable. If it is not, suggest how it
may be improved (e.g., by requesting illustrative examples, expanded
discussions on key points that are not clear, etc.)
would like to discourage excessively long papers (longer than 50
double-spaced pages including figures, references, etc.) and unnecessary
digressions, even in shorter papers. This is to help the authors focus on
the most important aspects of their submission, to make it easier for the
reviewers and readers, and to allow more papers to be published in any
given issue. Please determine if the paper you review can be shortened
without compromising the detail and merit of the paper's material and
- Similarly, TKDD
encourages shorter submissions, even very short (say, five page
submissions). The primary focus of review is a significant improvement on
the state-of-the-art, not the number pages the manuscript fills.
also publishes focused surveys. These should be deeply focused and will
sometimes be quite narrow, but would make a contribution to our
understanding of an important area or subarea
of databases, broadly defined. More general surveys that are intended for
a broad-based Computer Science audience or surveys that may influence
other areas of computing research should continue to go to
ACM Computing Surveys. Brief surveys on recent developments in data
mining research are more appropriate for
ACM SIGKDD Explorations. TKDD surveys should be educational to
data mining audiences by presenting a relatively well-established body of
data mining research. Surveys can summarize prior literature on a
theoretical or systems research topic, or can explain approaches
implemented in commercial systems. A survey of the former type summarizes
a literature on a particular subject, presenting a new way of
understanding how the papers in this literature fit together. A survey of
the latter type summarizes the best industrial art, and can be acceptable
even if it represents no new contribution over what has been used in
industry for years, if the paper's content is not to be found in the
- Consistent with the
ACM Policy on Reviewer Anonymity, reviewers must maintain the
confidentiality of reviewer identities, as well as the reviews themselves,
that are communicated to them at any time.
Please use the
ACM's manuscript tracking system for entering reviews (the papers will
have been submitted using that system).
For regular survey papers, the links
listed below provide the same review form in different formats.
The TKDD review form for surveys
is also available in several formats.