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.
S i m u l a t i o n & G a m i n g:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research
Editor: David Crookall
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:
==> Please delete the irrelevant parts below before replying.
Please reply immediately to this email,
whether or not you intend to do the review.
You will find 3 main sections below:
(A) If you cannot .., (B) If you can ..,
(C) Your review.
A) If you cannot review the ms, ...
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.
B) If you can review the ms, ...
... 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
from your reply before sending. Many thanks.
When you come to do your review, please go to Section C (below) and use the
format indicated there.
C) Your review
Your review should be in one single e-mail
message, and include two items: (1) an evaluation table and (2) a
Your commentary can be in one or both of two
(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.
1. Evaluation table for ms msID v_
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
___ Very high
Please use Ns 0, 11 or 222 below
0. Low, unacceptable, poor
11. Fair, average, acceptable
222. High, good, excellent
__ A. Importance of topic
__ B. Aims clearly stated, with logical structure
__ C: Aims fully achieved
__ D. Literature review (incl jrnl S&G)
__ E. Debriefing discussion*
__ F. Quality of ideas, logic, objectivity
__ G. Quality of data
__ H. Quality of method
__ I. Technical aspects, esp stats
__ J. Quality of discussion
__ K. Reliability of results; validity of conclusions
__ L. Organization
__ M. Coherence / balance
__ N. Clarity, concepts, logic
__ P. Quality of writing (Short, simple sentences, paras, topic
sentence, good grammar, etc)
__ N. Quality & clarity of visuals
__ P. Significance of contribution to profession/field
__ Q. ___________________
__ R. ___________________
* Pls note that authors must discuss debriefing fully and
appropriately. See author guide line:
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
S. Length (for topic):
Much too long ___Too long ___ About right ___ Too short ___
T. Publication recommendation:
___ 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
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).
Guidelines for writing commentaries (to be revised)
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
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
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
Please send to: <simulation.gaming AT gmail DOT com>
end of EvalForm