UKSim 2001

United Kingdom Simulation Society Conference

Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 28-30 March 2001

 

REFEREE'S REPORT

 

Manuscript reference number:  . . . . . .

 

Title of paper: ________________________________________________

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Author(s) ___________________________________________________

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Report completed by _____________________________  Date _________

 

PLEASE COMPLETE SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OVERLEAF

 

 

Notes for Referees

 

You are requested to advise the Associate Editor whether the enclosed paper is, in your opinion, suitable for publication in the proceedings of UKSim2001.  Please bear in mind the following points in making your assessment:

 

  1. Editorial Policy: The aim of the conference is to present high quality papers which are relevant to simulation practitioners, researchers, teachers, students and users of simulation systems, and which cover the practice, scientific theory, history or technology of simulation.

 

  1. A referee should feel free to suggest where a paper could be improved, for example by the removal of padding, by rearrangement, by simplification or by the provision or deletion of examples or illustrations. References should cover international sources and referees should indicate missing relevant ones; however, the use of excessive references should be pointed out.

 

  1. Referees should avoid the expression of over-strong opinions and personal comments. A courteous and well argued report is likely to be of most value to an author.

 

  1. One referee is normally invited for each paper and there may be occasions when there is a difference in judgment with the session organiser (Associate Editor); in such situations the editor may invite advice from a third referee or an editorial advisor. This is not to imply any discourtesy to the original referee and session organiser, whose contributions are greatly appreciated and whose comments will have been fully considered in reaching a final decision.

Referee's report for paper no. __________________

 

 

SECTION 1

 

      Suitability:                     YES/NO     (if no suggest alternative conferences/journals)

 

      Overall quality:              (low)    1          2          3          4          5 (high)

 

      Relevance to simulation:

                  practitioners                  (low)    1          2          3          4          5 (high)

                  technologists                 (low)    1          2          3          4          5 (high)

                  researchers                   (low)    1          2          3          4          5 (high)

 

      Recommendation          a.         accept

b.                  revise

c.                   rewrite

d.                  reject

 

 

SECTION 2

 

In support of your recommendation please summarise in not more than 2 paragraphs the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and suggest how the paper could be improved. The following check list may help.

 

Is the title suitable?

Does the abstract concisely reflect the ideas offered for presentation?

Are the keywords adequate and sufficient?

Are the references adequate and sufficient?

Are excessive references included?

Is the standard of English adequate?

Does the paper make a sufficient contribution to the science and technology of simulation and simulation systems?

 

If appropriate please annotate the abstracts to indicate where improvements are possible.

 

Signed: _________________________________  Date: ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ_________________

 

Many thanks; your report is much appreciated.