In This Section
AES Journal Manuscript Types
All manuscripts are subject to the general requirements laid out in Section III of the AES Publications Policy, given on the author guidelines page. Only Research Papers and Engineering Reports can be submitted using the online submission system. Communications and Letters should be emailed directly to the Journal Office.
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 could extend it.
Balance: The technical content should be balanced between theoretical and experimental. A mainly theoretical paper should preferably have experimental verification. A theoretical paper which lacks proper deduction from known facts, or does not arise from a basis of experimentation, or is speculative without basis or supporting reference to the literature, may only be considered for publication under Communications. A mainly experimental paper must have some theoretical background. Without sufficient theoretical background it should be considered for publication as an Engineering Report. Furthermore, manuscripts which are based on a product, but do not reveal the more interesting technical aspects of the product because the information is proprietary, should only be considered as submissions to Engineering Reports or Communications. 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. 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.
In order for a submitted manuscript to be considered as an Engineering Report, it must meet all of the relevant requirements of Sec. III and also have the following characteristics:
Completeness: The manuscript should be technically accurate, but not necessarily complete, i.e., it may report on work in progress or on the extension of previous work.
Balance: The technical content need not be balanced. It may be mainly theoretical or mainly experimental. If an experimental work, the conclusions may be qualitative rather than quantitative. If a theoretical development, the conclusions may be speculative. (If, however, 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 upon 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. (If the manuscript is only a description of a product, it is not acceptable.) The content can also be a tutorial review of applications of current technology.
Contents: The manuscript should contain an abstract, introduction, technical development, summary or conclusion and, when appropriate, 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 or one or more of the following reasons:
• 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.
Letters to the Editor
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.