Running the Editing Office and Processing of Papers

Contact: Volker RW Schaa (GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH)

The effective running of an Editorial Office and the processing of papers for compliance to the JACoW standard is at the heart of the JACoW activities. There are effective methods and setups which have evolved over many conferences to undertake this processing in an effective way.

The role of the Chief Editor is not just that of an editor, but of a Team Leader who first knows his conference specifics, prepares for the conference' needs, monitors the stats to ensure the task is completed before all resources are lost.

At the moment on this page is only a small part of the talk

The slides of the talk can be found here: Link to slides TUIOA10 pptx

What this talk will not cover

  • Workflow in Conference - Proceedings Offices
    David Button gave a perfect talk at the Team Meeting 2015 in Padova, Italy about the workflow.
    It is strongly recommend to read the slides of his talk as he gave a concise overview of important topics:
    • Resources
    • Paper Life Cycle
    • General Office Layout
    • Roles
    • Office Preparation
    • Paper Processing

What this talk will cover

  • Resources
    My talk be will about Resources but not the technical ones David covered in his talk but the human resources:
    • the Editing Team or the "Editors" and
    • as David called it, the "Chief Editor" or "Ring Master"
    But it will be very technical as it only mentions numbers and percentages.
  • The Chief Editor
    The Chief Editor has to know
    • his conference
    • how many papers to expect (number of abstract - x %)
    • the distribution between Word, LaTeX, and ODF format
    • how many papers/pages an editor can process in a day
    • how many editors he needs to do the job (in time)
    • the skills of the editors he can invite
    • how to distribute work forces
  • Know your conference
    The examples and statistics for this demonstration are from IPAC2016, as that was a conference which run perfectly well. The averages from other IPACs and (NA-)PACs show that when JACoW's requirements were met, the numbers do not deviate much.
    I have included some graphics about data for other conference series (HB, SRF, IBIC, ICALEPCS, and FEL), I will try to add all other active series. An overview of some data can also be found at {}
  • Number of Papers
    1553 Number of paper (abstracts) at time of printing the Abstract Booklet
    1268 papers processed and published in the proceedings
    -285 = 18 % no shows

    This percentage (~20%) was for a long time the standard '''No Show''' rate for IPACs (same as for EPACs and PACs before), the only exceptions had been IPAC2014 (8%) and IPAC2015 (12%) where poster submission were withdrawn when nobody was registered on the deadline (that was the thread Chris used).
    For other conference series 20% is the standard average of "No Shows" you should take into account when calculating the necessary number of editors. The only way to lower the number of authors not submitting their contribution is through the Program or SP Chair by talking directly with the authors. But mostly these submissions can be expected in the week(s) following the conference and when most editors are gone.
    The variation of no shows observed is as high as 35% and low as 10%.
    Before you start calculating, check the remark below about the average number of pages per paper and the effect the additional reference page plays in this.


Include links to related information that team members may find useful, for example, tutorials, presentations, and software sites.