Technical Paper Review Guidelines for Numerical Scoring

Score each quality on the scale of 0 to 10, thus, 0-2 is poor, 3-5 is below average or fair; 6-8 is above average or good; 9-10 is excellent or outstanding. Add scores for qualities of "subject" and "writing", giving points for "subject" a weight of two. The sum of scores for weighted "subject" and "writing" is the total quality evaluation of the paper. A perfect score would consist of 80 points for "subject" and 50 for "writing".

Above average total scores should be considered "Technical Committee (TC) approved" and eligible for a "Department approved" rating, and for being considered for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. Papers of very high ratings will be considered for Committee, Department, and Society Prize awards. Further review and rating of the "TC approved" papers will be made to select those papers to be considered for "department approved".


  1. Reader interest: What fraction of the Technical Committee membership will be interested in the subject?
  2. Importance: Is the subject important or trivial? Is it timely? Does it contribute something of value to the understanding of the field for those less expert than the reviewer? Is it too limited in scope?
  3. Reference value: Does the paper have permanent reference value?
  4. Originality: Affirmative answers to this question should lead to a high score on this point. Does it present a new concept, design or product? Does it bring together known facts to reveal new meaning? Does it report research extending the range of application of material or designs? Does it significantly correct or redefine current practice? If the paper is a survey of the state of the art, does it display originality in its selection and evaluation of previously published material ? Does it reveal an area in which progress is delayed for the want of new materials or infonnation ?


  1. Analysis and development: Does it present an adequate analysis of the problem and logically develop its conclusions? Is there experimental evidence to support the conclusions? Is experimental work described adequately to permit duplication and confirmation? Is the background information adequately presented? If presented at a meeting, will it provoke discussion? Does it contain matter objectionable to IEEE policy? Does it advocate special interest? Does it accomplish its purpose? Are there inaccuracies? (If so, the reviewers should indicate in a supplementary statement.) Is it logically arranged and organized?
  2. Conciseness: Is it unduly "wordy" or "padded"? Is there anything that could be condensed or omitted? Should figures be combined or omitted? Could some tables be combined or omitted?
  3. Clarity: Is the paper clearly written? Should there be additional illustrations to clarify the meaning? Is there need for more tabulated data?
  4. References to past works: Does the paper bring the reader up to date on the subject by giving adequate references to any past writing on the subject other than just that of the authors?
  5. Format, illustrations, and tables: Does that paper conform to IA Society requirements as to format, illustrations, and tabular data? Did the author follow IEEE and IAS style?

<< back