ECEG INTERNAL REVIEW FORM ------------------------- Title: __________________________________________________________ Author(s): ______________________________________________________ Targeted Conference/Journal: ____________________________________ Reviewer: ____________________ Due Date: _______________ Please complete and return this form by the date indicated above. I. EVALUATION ------------- A. SUITABILITY OF THE TOPIC 1. Is the topic important to researchers within the topic field? 0 Yes 0 Moderately so 0 Not really 2. Would it be timely to publish a paper now on this topic? 0 Yes 0 Somewhat premature 0 Probably too late B. CONTENT 1. Is the paper technically sound? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced? 0 Yes 0 Important parts of the topic are missing or treated superficially 0 Somewhat unbalanced treatment, but not seriously so 0 Certain parts greatly overstressed 3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper? 0 Superficial 0 Suitable for the nonspecialist (knowledgeable individual outside the topic field) 0 Appropriate for a worker in the topic field 0 At an expert level 4. Do you consider the paper to be authorative? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 5. Do you consider the content of the paper of high quality and originality? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor C. PRESENTATION 1. Do the title and abstract provide a clear, accurate indication of the material presented? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 2. Are symbols, terms, and concepts defined to the extent necessary for a reader not familiar with the topic? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 3. Are the discussions in the paper clear and well-founded? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 4. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 5. Are the references complete and accurate? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 6. How do you rate the English? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 7. How would you rate the literary style of the paper? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor D. SUMMARY 1. How would you rate the literary style of the paper? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 2. How would you rate the quality and originality of the paper? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 3. How accessible is the paper to the nonspecialist? 0 Completely 0 Mostly 0 Partially 0 Not at all 5. How would the paper be perceived by specialists in the topic field? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 6. Overall, how would you rate this paper? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Average 0 Below Average 0 Poor 7. Is the paper suitable for the conference/journal targeted by the author(s)? _____________________________________________________________ 8. To which other conferences/journals do you recommend the submission of the paper? _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ II. RECOMMENDATION ------------------ 0 Submit unaltered 0 Submit but suggest changes in section III to the author(s) 0 Submit, but changes in section III should be mandatory 0 Do not encourage the submission now ____________________________________________________________________ Date Signature III. DETAILED COMMENTS ---------------------- Please type or print below why you rated the paper as you did in sections I and II. It is important that you indicate WHAT REVISIONS, if any, the author(s) should make. List optional and mandatory changes seperately. Feel free to attach extra sheets as needed. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________