Reviewer’s Guidelines

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially. Please do not reveal your name within the text of your review.

Please, submit this review form to the Program Chair after evaluating the article according to the following questions, which serve as orientation:

Is the article/research of interest to GDN2013’s audience?

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant presentation at GDN2013? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the conference standards? Is the research question an important one?

Is the article clearly laid out? Does it follow GDN2013 standards? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article? Is it informative?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Results: Are the results presented adequately? Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the program chair when you submit your review.
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. Please bring this to the attention of the program chair.
  • Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately?

Previous Research
Does the article reference previous research appropriately and accurately?

Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the program chair know.
  • Fraud: If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the program chair.
  • Other ethical concerns: For experimental research, has confidentiality been maintained?