In my field of control system theory and application, the premier publication is the above named journal. In China, its status is roughly equivalent to Nature or Science  for biology/chemical/physical science papers. To have one of your paper published in it Is considered a great accomplishment. The journal quality is also highly respected in rest of the world though perhaps does not match its exalted position in China.

The respect this journal commands was not established in one day or one year. Here I recount some editorial experience that was practiced in the 1960s which I believe has a significant impact on the field and the journal.

 

In the sixties, the two largest US electrical engineering society, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE), and the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE) merged to form IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which is international in character and since then has grown to become the largest engineering society in the world. Within the Institute, interest groups were organized as professional groups or societies each with its own technical publication. The feedback control committee of AIEE was combined with the automatic control group of IRE to form the professional group on automatic control (PGAC) or later the Control Systems Society. Two giants of the field at that time, George Axelby and John Zaborszky had the foresights to organize the editorial committee of the Transaction on Automatic Control in a unique way. Each associate editor is  appointed for a period of three years in charge of a specific area in the subject of control. For example, I was appointed for the area of optimal control and my colleague Roger Brocket (then at MIT) on stability of dynamic systems. Every three months, the editorial board, called the Information Dissemination committee (IDC), meets in person in the IEEE headquarters in New York City or at the American Control Conference or at the Adaptive Control Conference later renamed Conference on Decision and Control in 1971 to discuss all the papers submitted to the Journal during the past quarter. Each associate editor at that time processes about 20-40 papers each quarter, i.e., gets three reviews and recommend a decision. The crucial thing is that you have to explain and defend your decision/recommendation on each paper to the rest of the IDC, i.e., other associate editors and the editor-in-chief. This calls for

1.       Reading and understanding the paper submitted

2.       Reading and understanding the reviews received

3.       Make a value and quality judgment on the paper and be ready to defend your judgment

4.       Responsible for the timely processing of the papers submitted.

If you don’t do any of the above tasks well, it will become obvious to the rest of the IDC and humiliating for yourself. For young scholars starting out as I was, this is the best training I received about the profession. Axelby and Zaborszky are wise enough to merely set policies and guideline for the operations of the IDC but never micromanage it. The three years myself and others spent on the IDC had great impact on our lives and on the profession. No other journal had similar practices.

 

In time. travel four times a year for editorial meetings proved too much and too expensive for everyone. The meetings were reduced to two times a year. In person discussion by the whole board for every paper was also too time consuming. Current operation of the editorial board is more like every other journals. Decision to publish a paper is a matter among the author/reviewer/associate editor/editor in chief. Other associate editors were not involved. However, the high standard of the IDC editorial practice remained even after many generations of editors. Above all, my whole generation came of age during that time and basically set the stage for the entire professional development of the field for the next forty years.

Here is another example that being subjected to "a jury of your peers" is the best incentive for high standards and responsible behavior.