Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
123 lines (85 loc) · 4.3 KB

review-template.rst

File metadata and controls

123 lines (85 loc) · 4.3 KB

Independent Review Report

Note

Please be aware that all reviews are made public including the reviewer's name.

Reviewer:

Department/Center/Division:

Institution/University/Company:

Field of interest / expertise:

Country:

Article reviewed:

INSTRUCTIONS

Please read the submitted article and fully complete this form. Since we don't have a copy editor, we also request that you annotate the PDF [1] to highlight typos, formatting issues, and grammatical mistakes.

The goal of the review process is two-fold. First, it guides authors in improving their papers and, secondly, ensures that published works are of a professional academic standard.

Research in science and engineering increasingly relies on software for data processing and management as well as theoretical exploration. However, the effort necessary to develop this software is rarely recognized as having the same academic worth as other aspects of the research. These proceedings are, at least in part, intended to address this shortcoming.

An article focused on software development necessarily differs from the standard scientific article with respect to format. For instance, it is unlikely to have the same sections (i.e., introduction, methods, results, conclusion). You may therefore have to rely on other factors to decide whether the paper sets a high enough standards as an academic publication.

Please note that, while reviewers' recommendations regarding a paper's suitability for publication are seriously considered, the final decision rests with the proceeding editors.

[1]We recommend the free version of PDF XChange Viewer for Linux (Wine) and Windows. Under OSX, annotation is provided by Preview as well as Skim.

GENERAL EVALUATION

Please rate the paper using the following criteria (please use the abbreviation to the right of the description):

below     doesn't meet standards for academic publication
meets     meets or exceeds the standards for academic publication
n/a       not applicable
  • Quality of the approach:
  • Quality of the writing:
  • Quality of the figures/tables:

SPECIFIC EVALUATION

For the following questions, please respond with 'yes' or 'no'. If you answer 'no', please provide a brief, one- to two-sentence explanation.

  • Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it? We aim not to publish papers that essentially advertise proprietary software. Therefore, if the code is not publicly available, please provide a one- to two- sentence response to each of the following questions:
    • Does the article focus on a topic other than the features of the software itself?
    • Can the majority of statements made be externally validated (i.e., without the use of the software)?
    • Is the information presented of interest to readers other than those at whom the software is aimed?
    • Is there any other aspect of the article that would justify including it despite the fact that the code isn't available?
    • Does the article discuss the reasons the software is closed?
  • Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:
    • explain why the problem is important,
    • describe in which situations it arises,
    • outline relevant previous work,
    • provide background information for non-experts
  • Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?
  • Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?
  • Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained?
  • Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?
  • Is the paper factually correct?
  • Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality?
  • Are the conclusions justified?
  • Is prior work properly and fully cited?
  • Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain.
  • In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).