Procedure for processing contributions to AMA.
Montpellier en Algèbre.
Public information to be used by the Editorial Board.
A. When a paper is submitted to an editor of A.M.A.:
B. When an editor receives a paper recommended for publication by an
operating editor, he/she proceeds as follows:
The operating editor first makes sure that he/she receives both the
latex source file and a printed copy. Then he/she checks whether the following
requirements are satisfied :
a) the paper has 5 pages or less,
b) it complies with the standards of presentation of A.M.A.,
c) it agrees with minimal mathematical requirements and the editorial
The operating editor notifies the corresponding author that the manuscript
is being sent to a referee.
Then the operating editor decides whether to write a report on the paper
him/herself or to ask a colleague to do so. In the second case, he/she
will send the referee a copy of the paper and the editorial policy. In
any case the editor obtains a report, the body of which is unsigned, to
be transmitted to the author(s). In an accompanying letter to the author(s),
the operating editor may stress the viewpoint of the referee, spell out
improvements or changes that would benefit the paper, and ask for a revised
version. An important point : before passing on the referee's report to
the author(s), the operating editor carefully checks its anonymity and
sends it using "paste and copy" commands instead of file transfer.
In case of rejection (at any stage of the process), the operating editor
may choose his/her own mode of notifying the author(s). Suggestions or
explanatory comments would be desirable, however.
If the editor decides to recommend the paper for publication, he/she transmits
it to the other editors, together with:
a) a short note highlighting the date and his/her opinion on the article,
b) the source file of the paper,
c) the referee's report and the name of the referee.
A two to four month delay is possible at this stage (see below).
However, if the other editors concur with the decision of the operating
editor, the latter notifies the editorial board of this consensus. At this
point, the paper is officially accepted for publication.
The operating editor notifies the corresponding author(s), and asks that
the following be sent to the A.M.A. office at Montpellier :
a) the files of the paper (latex source, dvi and postscript),
b) a printed copy and the signed copyright agreement.
If the editor concurs with the recommendation, he/she notifies the operating
editor to that effect.
In case of disagreement, the operating editor announces a four month delay
to the other members of the editorial board; this delay period is to start
at the highlighted date (see above). The opposing editor solicits an alternative
referee's report and passes it on to the rest of the members, together
with a justification of his/her point of view. An e-mail discussion among
the editors ensues. If, after this four month delay, one of the editors
still opposes publication, the paper is rejected. In that case, the corresponding
author is notified by either the operating or the chief editor, who also
transmits an anonymous version of the alternative referee's report. However,
the discussion of the editorial board is not revealed.
This procedure should be considered exceptional, however.