|
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".
Subject
- Reader interest: What
fraction of the Technical Committee membership will be interested
in the subject?
- 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?
- Reference value: Does
the paper have permanent reference value?
- 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 ?
Writing
- 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?
- 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?
- Clarity: Is the paper
clearly written? Should there be additional illustrations
to clarify the meaning? Is there need for more tabulated data?
- 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?
- 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
|
