Evaluation
This section contains a copy of the guide
provided to manuscripts evaluators / reviewers.
This will give you an idea of the
criteria and method of evaluation of your ms.
Simulation & Gaming:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice
and Research
Editor: David Crookall
<simulation-gaming wanadoo fr> (pls add the @ and .)
=================
Ms evaluation form
=================
Dear Friend & Colleague
The manuscript attached to this email has been submitted to S&G
for possible publication (or it may be a revised version of an earlier ms).
Your evaluation and comments will be greatly appreciated by the
author(s) and the editor.
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 can .., (B) If you
cannot ..,
(C) Your review.
A) 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 whole of this message from your
reply before sending. That is, please send only the above short
note. Many thanks.
When you come to do your review, please go to Section C (below)
and use the format indicated there.
++++++++++
B) 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. 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.
++++++++++
C) Your review
=============
Your review should be in one single e-mail
message, and include
two items:
(1) a completed evaluation table and
(2) a commentary - general comments to be placed
inside an email,
small detailed typo
corrections can be made inside the ms.
Please use the above format for the subject line of
your message.
For example, 307_v2_A-study-of-simulation = RevB ...
You can hit "reply" to get this.
1. Evaluation table
======================
Please include this table at the start of your evaluation.
Use "XX" to indicate your evaluation (no need to delete
the underscores).
0. Low, unacceptable, poor
1. Fair, average, acceptable
2. High, good, excellent
A. Importance of topic
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
B. Literature review
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
C. Debriefing discussion
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
D. Quality of ideas
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
E. Quality of method
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
H. Organization
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
J. Coherence / balance
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
K. Quality of writing
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
L. ___________________
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
M. ___________________
0.____ 1.____ 2.____
N. Length (for topic):
Much too long ___Too long ___ About right ___ Too short ___
O. Publication recommendation:
___ 0a. Reject unequivocally (and do not recommend for publication elsewhere).
___ 0b. Good article, but reject for S&G (and recommend to submit to another journal).
___ 1. Reject in present form, but invite to re-submit at a later date as a completely new
article (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 send back to me for a brief re-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).
N. Suitability. The article is most suitable for the: ___ Main, ___ R&C Section.
++++++++++++++
2. Commentary
==================
Suggestions for writing commentaries
For articles we accept, your commentary is needed by the author to
revise his/her article to bring it in line with the standards we
require for the journal. This will help to maintain (and even
increase) the high 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 half to three pages (single spaced)
should cover the main points. It would be useful to provide all
your substantive commentary (concerning content, method, logic,
results, ideas, etc.) together, followed by any formal points
(about 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 it is a research article, 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 article,
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 an article is acceptable, but needs revision, it is vital to spell
out suggestions or requirements regarding such revision,
accompanied by some words of encouragement. 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.
For articles 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 article in the future.
Please do not return the manuscript unless there are
notes on it for the author. Your notes can be incorporated
directly into the e-mail message (or attachment).
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 an article 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 wanadoo fr>
end of EvalForm
|