Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.0 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
I first approached the CMJ editor in 2010 about a 25-year retrospective of the importance of the Systems Concepts Digital Synthesizer project at Stanford. It turned into two articles plus a review that were all published together in the Fall 2013 issue. One article discussed the architecture of the Synthesizer, one the research project surrounding it, and the review focused on some of the music composed using it. Thus, this was a very big project with lots of technical and historical details to get right, and it took years to complete. The CMJ editorial staff was superb throughout; very supportive, with many valuable suggestions, responsive to my concerns, balanced and light with their editorial pens. A very enjoyable experience. They have my highest respect.
30.4 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
6 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
The review process was very rigorous, and handled in a very professional manner. I received some very challenging reviews, but the consequence is that the articles were greatly improved, over-broad assertions were pruned back to defensible positions, and the subject matter was completely vetted. Given that the articles constituted a long-view historical treatment of research developments of hundreds of researchers, it was very important to get everything right. The Computer Music Journal and the MIT Press were good allies in the process of obtaining the very best work from me.