IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing Submission Process

The first decision is slow because it follows full review, running about 90 to 150 days as an unofficial planning range. The early window is an administrative and EDICS routing check, while edge cases diverge sharply: a format, page-limit, or EDICS violation is an expedited administrative return in the first 1 to 14 days, and a manuscript awaiting a third reviewer is an outlier that can be delayed well past the median. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing is the IEEE Signal Processing Society's flagship theory and methods Transactions, and EDICS routing plus the page limit are the dominant features of the early timeline.

If you want an outside read before you open the Author Portal, use the free manuscript readiness check to test whether the EDICS fit and the page limit clear the administrative check.

Initial quality check: completeness, format, and EDICS

The first layer is administrative but still decisive. Before an Associate Editor is assigned, Society staff run a compliance check on submission criteria such as format and length, and the submission itself asks for authorship and corresponding-author details, the confirmation that the work is original and not under concurrent submission, an ORCID for every author, and the EDICS classification that drives routing. A submission can look finished in the portal and still be returned if it exceeds the 13-page initial page limit, breaks an IEEE format rule, or carries an EDICS code that does not match the contribution.

Editorial assignment: EDICS routing to an Associate Editor

IEEE TSP uses the EDICS topic taxonomy to route a manuscript to an Associate Editor whose expertise matches the contribution. The EDICS codes you select are not a formality: they determine which AE reads the paper and which reviewers are invited. A mismatched EDICS sends the paper to the wrong AE and can stall it before an editor is assigned or draw reviewers outside its area.

Peer review: contribution assessment after routing

Manuscripts that clear the admin check and are routed to an AE move to reviewers under single-blind review (the Society recommends three to four invitations, with two reviews as the minimum). The reviewer job is not only to check that the theory or algorithm is correct. It is to decide whether the signal-processing contribution is significant, whether the experiments and baselines are strong, and whether the results are reproducible enough to support the claims.

Final decision: significance and rigor after reports return

Even after review, the decision turns on the significance of the contribution and the rigor of the evidence. A technically correct paper can be returned if the reports show the contribution is incremental, the baselines are weak or stale, or the experiments do not support the claimed advance.

This is the early gate. Before an Associate Editor reads the contribution in depth, Society staff confirm the 13-page initial limit and IEEE formatting, the authors have confirmed originality, and the EDICS classification routes the paper to an AE.

At this stage the system and the editor are effectively asking:

• does the manuscript fit the 13-page initial limit and IEEE format, with the originality declaration in place?

• does the EDICS classification match the contribution, so the paper reaches the right Associate Editor?

• is the scope a fit for IEEE TSP rather than IEEE Signal Processing Letters or a sister Transactions?

Because this gate is administrative, an early return in the first days is a format, length, or routing reject, not a refereed decision. A slow first decision, by contrast, is the normal full-review path.

Papers that clear routing go to reviewers (the Society recommends three to four invitations, with at least two reviews needed for a decision), who typically assess:

• the significance and originality of the signal-processing contribution

• the rigor of the theory, algorithm, or estimator

• the strength and currency of the experiments and baselines

• whether the results are reproducible enough to support the claims

• clarity of the contribution against the EDICS area

IEEE TSP uses single-blind review, so reviewers see author identities while staying anonymous themselves, and reviewers are asked to return reports within six weeks of receipt. An unofficial planning range for the first decision is 90 to 150 days after submission, though a single manuscript can move faster or slower depending on reviewer availability and whether a third reviewer is needed.

• Administrative reject (early, pre-review): a return at the compliance check or AE-assignment stage, usually on the page limit, IEEE format, EDICS mismatch, or scope. Fix the classification, cut to the limit, or re-route before resubmitting.

• Major revision: substantive reviewer concerns, often about the experiments, baselines, or the significance of the contribution. The revised paper returns to the same AE and reviewers; respond point by point.

• Minor revision: the paper is essentially accepted pending specific fixes. Respond carefully and promptly.

• Accept: uncommon on the first round; usually follows a clean revision.

Four recurring patterns trip otherwise-capable IEEE TSP packages in the early window:

• Misreading an early return as a refereed rejection. An early return is almost always an administrative reject on format, length, or EDICS, not a judgment of the methods. The check happened before review.
• An EDICS classification that fights the paper. A mismatched EDICS routes the manuscript to the wrong Associate Editor and can stall it before an editor is assigned or draw out-of-area reviewers. The classification is part of the submission strategy.
• Breaking the 13-page initial limit. An over-length manuscript is returned at the compliance check before an editor reads the contribution.
• A reproducibility gap. Missing code, data, or experimental detail that reviewers need to verify the claims weakens the paper once it reaches review.

Check whether your IEEE TSP EDICS classification matches the contribution before you submit →

Check if your IEEE TSP manuscript fits the 13-page limit and IEEE format before the admin check →

Check whether your experiments and reproducibility will satisfy EDICS-matched reviewers →

This guide tells you what IEEE TSP editors look for in the early window; the review tells you whether your paper passes the routing and reviewer bar. 60-day money-back guarantee; authors retain all rights and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

In our pre-submission review work on IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing submissions, three patterns account for most of the manuscripts that stumble in the early window, before substantive review begins.

The EDICS classification fights the paper

We repeatedly see IEEE TSP manuscripts where the EDICS codes are chosen loosely, so the paper routes to an Associate Editor whose area does not match the contribution. Because EDICS drives both AE assignment and reviewer selection, a mismatched classification stalls the paper or draws out-of-area reviewers. The fix we push is to choose the EDICS codes that name the actual contribution and to make that contribution legible in the abstract and introduction so the routing holds.

The manuscript breaks the page or format gate

A related pattern is a strong paper that exceeds the 13-page initial limit or breaks an IEEE format rule, so the compliance check returns it before an editor reads the signal-processing contribution. We help authors compress to the limit, move supporting derivations to the appropriate place, and clear the IEEE format and originality-declaration requirements so the manuscript reaches an Associate Editor rather than the admin gate.

The reproducibility evidence is thin for the reviewers

The third pattern is a sound theoretical or algorithmic contribution whose experiments are hard for an EDICS-matched reviewer to trust: baselines that are stale, missing code or data, or experiments that do not isolate the claimed advance. IEEE TSP reviewers weigh reproducibility and baseline currency heavily, and we push authors to strengthen the experiments, refresh the baselines, and provide the code and data that let a reviewer verify the result. In our IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing readiness checks we confirm the EDICS classification names the contribution, the manuscript fits the 13-page initial limit, and the experiments and baselines are current and reproducible, because those are the elements the administrative check and the EDICS-matched reviewers read before the signal-processing contribution is judged on its merits.

IEEE TSP (IEEE Signal Processing Society, JIF about 6.1, signal-processing theory and methods) sits among several adjacent venues, and EDICS routing is partly a venue decision:

• choose IEEE Signal Processing Letters for a compact, high-impact result that does not need full Transactions length

• choose a sister IEEE Transactions (such as Image Processing, Audio Speech and Language Processing, or Information Theory) when the contribution centers on that area

• choose a machine-learning venue when the contribution is a general learning method rather than a signal-processing advance

• stay with IEEE TSP when the contribution is a significant signal-processing theory or methods advance within the page limit and the right EDICS area

Last verified June 2026 against the IEEE Signal Processing Society author information and the Manuscript Central intake. EDICS taxonomy, page limits, and timing shift between updates; treat the numbers as planning ranges and confirm the current figures on the Society site before you submit.

TSP is a theory venue. An application paper built on standard signal processing fits elsewhere. Weigh IEEE TSP against the closest alternatives.