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: