All manuscripts are subject to the General Requirements section on the author guidelines page.
These are papers which report original and significant research. In order for a submitted manuscript to be considered as a Research Paper, it must meet all of the relevant requirements of the General Requirements section on the author guidelines page and also have the following characteristics:
Completeness: The manuscript should be technically accurate and complete, and it should describe significant work of relevance to the audio engineering profession. The work should be described in such a manner that others versed in the art can apply or extend it.
Balance: The technical content may be theoretical, experimental, or a combination of both. A mainly theoretical paper should preferably have experimental verification and deduction from known facts. A mainly experimental paper must have some theoretical background. In experimental papers, measurement and test procedures should be described with sufficient detail that a reader skilled in the art would be able to reconstruct the experiment in order to verify the results of the experimenter.
Archival Value: The content should have archival value. It should be of more than just immediate interest. The content should contain a review of the state of the art, with proper description of the background and references to the literature. Discussions of current technology which are not of long-term interest, such as those which are primarily applications discussions of commercial components or systems, or which focus on characteristics of specific components, should be considered as Engineering Reports.
Contents: The manuscript should contain an abstract, introduction, technical development, results, summary or conclusion, and appropriate references to related research and development, both historic and current.
Engineering Reports are core audio engineering-related contributions, typically referring to original design, construction, or implementation. Their focus is normally on an achievement, product, invention, or data set of notable interest to the audio-engineering community or related disciplines. A comprehensive scientific overview should be an essential part of this type of submission. In order for a submitted manuscript to be considered as an Engineering Report, it must meet all of the relevant requirements of the General Requirements section on the author guidelines page and also have the following characteristics:
Completeness: The manuscript should be technically accurate, though it may report on work in progress or on the extension of previous work.
Balance: The technical content may be mainly theoretical or mainly experimental, and conclusions may be qualitative or quantitative. However, it is normally expected that the technical details of the contribution are disclosed. If the basis of the article is speculation, it can only be considered under Communications.
Archival Value: The content should be of timely interest to the readership. It does not need to have archival value. This is particularly true of applications which are dependent on a specific product or technology. Brief mention can be made of the product, as for instance in a manuscript describing the technical aspects of its application. Manuscripts that are merely product descriptions are unacceptable. The content should contain a review of the state of the art, with proper description of the background and references. The content can also provide a tutorial review of applications of current technology.
Contents: The manuscript would typically contain an abstract, introduction, technical development, application examples, summary or conclusion, and references. Under certain situations, one or more sections may be absent.
Review papers may take the form of a historical review, systematic review or a meta-analysis. Historical reviews should critically and comprehensively document the historical development of a particular field, technology, idea or technique, with reference to relevant published materials. Systematic reviews should comprehensively, critically and systematically review published studies in a clearly defined research field, in order to offer answers to a specific question or questions. A meta-analysis should combine the results of previously published studies, analysing them perhaps to shed light on broader trends, temporal evolution of a phenomenon, or to gain greater statistical power. In all cases, review papers must make a distinct contribution to the body of knowledge in the field concerned, such as through the critical synthesis of existing knowledge, novel insights or conclusions, or novel data analyses.
In order for a submitted manuscript to be considered as a Communication it should have the following characteristics:
The manuscript should have a content that is of particular interest to Journal readers, although it does not fit the definition of a Paper or an Engineering Report for one or more of the following reasons:
It is useful for scientists with time-sensitive results. • The work is speculative in nature. • The work or its interpretation is open to question. • The manuscript clearly leans on one side of an opinion-prone subject. • Style does not conform to requirements for a Paper or an Engineering Report.
If the Editor or reviewer feels it to be advisable, an Editorial Note may be added to precede or follow the published Communication. This Note must be acceptable to the author of the manuscript.
The page limit for a Communication is 4 pages.
In order for a submitted manuscript to be considered as a Letter to the Editor, it must meet all of the General Requirements of Sec. III and also have the following characteristics:
• The manuscript may cover non technical matters of general interest to the membership. Nontechnical Letters are not normally reviewed.
• The manuscript may be a correction, amplification, or discussion of a previously published article of any category. • Letters are sent for review to the author of the original article. If the author wishes to reply to the letter, the author’s reply should be published simultaneously with the letter. • The letter and the author’s reply are both subject to all of the Special Requirements of Sec. III, including review.
