RESEARCH AND THEMATIC PAPER REVIEW FORM FOR EUROSPI (SPRINGER

RESEARCH REPORT  CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RECRUITS AND THE
13 UTICA COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD RESEARCH
2022 SCICU UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTFACULTY RESEARCH PROGRAM

APPLICATION FOR GENERAL RESEARCH IN THE ROTTNEST
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
ON THE FRONT LINE OF CARE A RESEARCH

Comments to the Editor:

Research and Thematic Paper Review Form for EuroSPI (SPRINGER & WILEY)



EuroAsiaSPI² SPRINGER Review Form


The EuroAsiaSPI² website supports the upload of reviews. Please upload your review(s) at http://www.eurospi.net.


Paper title:

Paper first author:



Reviewer's confidence in reviewing the paper: [1 - 5]: __

1 = not familiar, 5 = very familiar



Detailed review: For each of the questions give your answer according to the scale:


  1. The paper describes original and actual work in SPI [1 - 5]: __

  2. The paper gives adequate references [1 - 5]: __

  3. The approach / case study is appropriately described including lessons learned [1 - 5]: __

  4. The paper is interesting for an industrial audience [1 - 5]: __

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree



Overall Paper Decision:


1: STRONG ACCEPT

2: WEAK ACCEPT (REVISION NEEDED)

3: WEAK REJECT (MAJOR REVISION REQUIRED)

4: STRONG REJECT (NO PUBLICATION RECOMMENDED)




Reasons for recommendation to EuroAsiaSPI²:



Comments to the Author(s):



Confidential comments (for the PC), these comments DO NOT complete in the word file but complete them in the online form in the review submission





Journal of Software: Evolution and Process

WILEY REVIEW FORM

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers: JSEP aims to publish excellent software process articles. Thank you for helping accomplish this goal. Comments directed to the author may be typed within this form or on a separate sheet. Please remember that this form will be returned to the author(s). The following is simply a guide to assist in your review. Please feel free to expand as necessary.

Paper #: Title:



Please rate the paper on the following dimensions and provide detailed comments. Place a Bold X under your rating (1 = not at all, 7 = completely).

Not at all

Somewhat

Completely

Does this paper make a new or substantial contribution to the literature in the process area?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


To what extent did you understand what the authors were trying to accomplish?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


To what extent did you gain new insights (learn new things) from reading the paper?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


How interesting or challenging would JSEP readers find the ideas in the paper?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


If this is an empirical paper, is the methodology appropriate?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


Is the paper competently written in either academic or technical terms? (Concepts defined? Statistics presented correctly? etc.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


Is the paper stylistically appropriate for a professional journal? (clear, concise, and absent of clichés)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:


Are the title, abstract and key words appropriate for the paper? Are references sufficiently complete? (Please indicate significant omissions)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:







Poor/Not Appropriate or not Publishable

Average-Good/ Needs modifications and work

Very Good/ Publishable with little or no work

What is your overall assessment of the paper?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Comment:



Overall Recommendation


Overall recommendation for including the paper in JSEP


Be accepted by JSEP as it stands

Be accepted with minor modifications

Comment: …………………………………….


Be returned to the author for major modifications (please be specific) with the suggestion that
the paper be resubmitted

Comment: …………………………………….


Be rejected

Be recommended for submission to a more appropriate journal (please be specific)

Comment: …………………………………….



If the paper is accepted, it should be submitted to the research session … or experience/industrial session …



General Comments to Author(s) (Type them below.)

……………………………………………………………………










© EuroSPI 4 | Page


PHD STUDENTSHIP RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CENTRE
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT PROFORMA RESEARCH PROPOSAL CONFIRMATION FOR DIRECT
RESEARCH ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE (WHO ERC) 20 AVENUE


Tags: (springer &, review, thematic, research, eurospi, (springer, paper