A timely return of the reviewers' recommendations is crucial to the publishing process. Late return of reviews is the main element that delays publication.
The material you review is confidential; you must not reveal it to anyone until after it has been published.
We hope that you will strive to bring to each review your considered expertise, to judge each paper with an open mind, and to find the right point between judging too permissively and too strictly.
What is the purpose of the paper?
What is the problem? Is it clearly stated? Does the author make the important issues clear? Does the author tell you early in the paper what he or she has accomplished?...
Is the paper appropriate?
Does this paper have anything to do with [the field]? If so, is the research appropriate for this forum?...
Is the goal significant?
For that matter, is the problem real? … Is the problem, goal, or intended result new? Has the design been built before? Has the problem been solved before? Is this a trivial variation on or extension of previous results? Is the author aware of related and previous work, both recent and old? Does he or she cite that work and give specific distinctions between it and the current work? If the paper describes an implementation, are there any new ideas?
Is the method of approach valid?
Is there something about the approach that invalidates the results? Can you tell what the method is, or do you have to ferret it out from mathematical formulas?
What are the assumptions? … If this is a new idea, does the author present enough discussion or analysis?...
Is the actual execution of the research correct?
Are the mathematics correct? … Are the proofs convincing? Are the statistics correct? Is the simulation methodology described in sufficient detail to convince you that the results are valid? ...
Are the correct conclusions drawn from the results?
What are the applications or implications of the results? Does the author adequately discuss why he or she obtained these results?
Is the presentation satisfactory? Is the paper written well enough for you to evaluate the technical content? Does the abstract describe the paper? Does the introduction adequately explain the problem and the research framework? Are the remaining sections clear, and do they follow in a logical order? Is there too much or too little detail? Are the grammar and syntax correct? Are the figures and tables well labeled, legible, and meaningful? Are there too many or too few tables and figures? Are explanations poor or even nonsensical? ...
The paper should be long enough to present the necessary material and no longer....
What did you learn? What did you, or what should the reader, learn from the paper? If you didn't learn anything, or if the intended reader won't learn anything, the paper is not publishable.
Submission of Review Results We encourage our reviewers to submit their review reports on our web site.
For online submission of review results, log onto the system by entering your ID and password on the left panel or use the direct link from the review request email.
Download the reviewer's report forms:
1) Review Form (papers)
2) Review Form (letters) 3) Reevaluations
<< Go back