Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research  http://sag.sagepub.com
  | Home | Guide for Authors | About S&G | Resources | Search | Subscribe | 

Ms evaluation

[ Up ] [ Next ]  Same level => • Ms evaluation • Coaching • Responses • Revising • Etiquette •
Lower level => 

Evaluation
This section contains a copy of the guide provided to manuscript evaluators / reviewers.
This will give you an idea of the criteria and method of evaluation of your ms.

<simulation.gaming AT gmail DOT com> -- <http://sg.sagepub.com/>

Dear Friend & Colleague

The manuscript attached to this email has been submitted to S&G for possible publication. It may also be a revised version of an earlier ms. Your evaluation and comments will be greatly appreciated by the author(s) and the editor. This document is in two parts:

i - Request for your immediate answer: A no or B yes;

ii - The evaluation form for your review: C.

Thanks, David

You will find 3 main sections below:

(A) If you cannot .., (B) If you can .., (C) Your review.

If you cannot review it within about a month, please be in touch immediately by e-mail. Do not wait until the deadline arrives! Let me know if you need more time and how much, or if you cannot review the ms at all.

If you cannot review the ms, please send me the name and contact details of an alternative person whom you think would be a good reviewer.

This will allow us to give authors the prompt decision that they deserve. Please use the ms ID in the subject line (see above). Thanks.

... please review the manuscript within the next month.

Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this request and indicate your intention to return your evaluation and comments within about a month (up to 2 months during academic vacations) by sending me a short e-mail. Please keep the subject line of this email in your reply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you hit "reply" please delete the irrelevant part of this message

When you come to do your review, please go to Section C (below) and use the format indicated there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your review should be in one single e-mail message, and include two items: (1) an evaluation table and (2) a commentary.

Your commentary can be in one or both of two forms:

(a) Always, in the body of an email - preferred. if you do your commentary in a word processor, please copy/paste it into your email (not as an attachment).

(b) If you wish to write directly on the ms file, then in the word file of the ms itself. Here you will make comments directly in the text of the author's article, inside the word file. Return the file as an attachment, keeping the same filename, but adding "_RevX", where X is your reviewer letter indicated in the sibect line of my origival email to you. Pls use this in all correspondence about this ms.

Please use the above format for the subject line of your message.

For example, 307_v2_ study-simulation = RevB ...

You can hit "reply" to get this.

======================

Please include this table at the start of your evaluation.

My level of confidence in the topic, the method, the type of simulation/game, the literature, and other things needed to provide a useful review:

Low ____ Medium ___ High ___ Very high ___

Please use Ns 0, 11 or 222 below

0. Low, unacceptable, poor

11. Fair, average, acceptable

222. High, good, excellent

__ B. Aims clearly stated, with logical structure

__ C: Aims fully achieved

__ P. Quality of writing (Short, simple sentences, paras, topic sentence, good grammar, etc)

* Pls note that authors must discuss debriefing fully and appropriately. See author guide line: <http://www.unice.fr/sg/authors/debriefing.htm>. A simple mention that they have debriefed with no detail is unacceptable. They should account fully for the debriefing, and put debriefing protocols, materials, etc in an appendix (supporting information).

---------------------

Much too long ___Too long ___ About right ___ Too short ___

-----------------------------

___ 0a. Reject unequivocally (and do not recommend for publication elsewhere).

___ 0b. Good paper, but reject for S&G (and recommend  an alternative journal).

___ 1. Reject in present form, but invite to re-submit at a later date as a completely new paper (see my commentary).

___ 2a. Accept, but require substantial revision in content and/or form (detailed in my commentary), and send back revised version to me for re-evaluation.

___ 2b. Accept on condition that relatively moderate changes in content and/or form (specified in my commentary) are incorporated into a revised version; and possibly send back to me for a brief review/verification.

___ 3a. Accept with minor modifications to substance and/or form (see my commentary); another review by me not necessary.

___ 3b. Accept, but typos and other small formal details to be ironed out.

___ 4. Accept as is.

___ 5. Other (see my remarks).

++++++++++++++

==================

For papers we accept, your commentary is needed by the author to revise his/her paper to bring it in line with the high standards we require for the journal. This will help to maintain (and even increase) the quality and prestige of the journal that we serve and with which we are associated (as Editorial Board members or as Additional Readers).

Generally a commentary of one to three email screens (single spaced) should cover the main points. Include this in the body of your email to me.

It would be useful to provide all your substantive commentary (concerning content, method, logic, results, ideas, etc.) together.  This may be followed by any general formal points (about grammar, presentation, style, etc.).  In most cases, substantive commentary is more important than formal points, especially if the article is likely to need extensive revision.  If formal things (grammar, expression, etc) is not at native speaker level throughout, then it is sufficient to make a strong, but general, statement indicating that this needs to be done (preferably by a professional copy editor).  No need to point out each problem; that is not your job.

If it is a research paper, please comment (where appropriate) on: statement of research problem/aims, review of previous research, description of study, data collection procedure, appropriacy & validity of instrumentation, data analysis, conclusions drawn, implications/recommendations, clarity & suitability of statistical tables.

If it is a theoretical, conceptual, descriptive or review paper, please comment (where appropriate) on: statement of problem/aims, literature review, ideas/concepts, originality, argumentation/ reasoning, overall coherence of framework/description, validity of hidden/underlying assumptions, conclusions, implications/ recommendations.

If a paper is acceptable, but needs revision, it is vital to spell out suggestions or requirements regarding such revision, accompanied by some words of encouragement. It is more helpful to an author to get comments on how to improve the paper than comments simply on what is wrong with the paper. It is legitimate to point out weak aspects of an article, but such comments need to be followed with positive suggestions. Making constructive comments will result in better papers. If you are enthusiastic about the manuscript or about aspects of it, please convey this as well; I know of no author who is not pleased to receive well-earned compliments.

If it will improve the article, please also comment on the debriefing aspects. If debriefing is an important part of the substance, and the article does not deal with it appropriately, then indicate what the author must do. If the article does not deal with debriefing at all, then either (a) authors must include it, or (b) authors need to justify why it is not included.

For ms that we reject, it is still important for us to supply feedback, even if only as a mark of respect and of acknowledgement that the author has considered the journal. S/he may thus also be encouraged to submit another paper in the future.

Your notes should be incorporated directly into the body an e-mail message. Please do not attach the manuscript unless there is no other way of providing comments for the author.  If you do use a word attachment, pls use .doc (not .docx), keep the same filename, but add your "_RevX" id et the end of the filename.

3. Comments for the editor only

=========================

If you wish to make any comments that cannot be passed on to the author, please send them in a second e-mail message. Include the ms ID, and add "for the editor only". However, such comments should normally be rare; if something important needs to be said about the article, it should probably be passed on to the author.

Thanks

======

Remember too that a paper from you sometime would be most welcome. Many thanks for your time and trouble -- your hard work is much appreciated. Best wishes, David.

Please send to: <simulation.gaming AT gmail DOT com>

end of EvalForm

+