ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) Review Form

Paper Number:
Title:
Author(s):

Section I. Evaluation


  1. Is the paper of interest to a reasonable segment of the simulation community?
    ____ Yes
    ____ No

  2. Is the paper logically and technically correct?
    ____ Yes
    ____ Appears to be, but didn't check completely
    ____ Only partially (see Section III)
    ____ No

  3. Does the paper make a sufficient contribution to the state-of-the-art so as to warrant publication in TOMACS?
    ____ Yes
    ____ To a limited extent (See Section III)
    ____ No (see Section III)

  4. Is the title appropriate?
    ____ Yes
    ____ No (see Section III)

  5. Is the abstract an appropriate and adequate digest of the work presented?
    ____ Yes
    ____ No (see Section III)

  6. Does the introduction clearly state the background and/or motivation in terms understandable to the non-specialist?
    ____ Yes
    ____ Probably (see Section III)
    ____ No (see Section III)

  7. Are the references or bibliography appropriate and complete?
    ____ Yes
    ____ Some additions and/or deletions required (see Section III)
    ____ No (see Section III)

  8. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?
    ____ Satisfactory
    ____ Could be improved (see Section III)
    ____ Poor (see Section III)

  9. Relative to its technical content and scope, is the length of the paper appropriate?
    ____ Yes
    ____ No, too long (see Section III)
    ____ No, too short (see Section III)

  10. Is the English satisfactory?
    ____ Yes
    ____ No, but can easily be polished
    ____ No, very poor

  11. How readable is the paper for a reader who is a non-specialist in the field of this paper?
    ____ Readable with ordinary effort
    ____ Paper is self-contained, but a considerable effort is required
    ____ Difficult
    ____ Unreadable


Section II. Recommendation

____ Accept with no changes
____ Accept if certain minor revisions are made
____ Author(s) should prepare a major revision for a second review
____ Reject


Section III. Detailed comments for the author(s)

Please make detailed comments and suggestions for the author(s). Constructive comments are an invaluable aid to the author(s) to help in improving the overall technical quality, utility and readability of the paper. Use as much space as necessary.






Section IV. Comments for the editors, not to be shown to the author(s)






Reviewer name:
Reviewer signature:
Date: