This form is provided here for printout only and may not be electronically
transmitted in order to protect the blind review process.

line

TECHNICAL PAPER REVIEW FORM

line

MANUSCRIPT #: REVIEW DUE DATE:
DATE SUBMITTED:  NAME OF ASSOCIATE EDITOR:
NUMBER PAGES SUBMITTED:  ASSOCIATE EDITOR CONTACT INFORMATION:
NUMBER ESTIMATED FINAL PAGES: 
AUTHOR(S):
TITLE:

 


The IEEE Transactions prepared under the auspices of the IEEE Signal Processing Society publish original, comprehensive, in-depth technical papers for knowledgeable readers including researchers and practitioners. The papers are of long-range interest and are significant to the signal processing and related disciplines. All submitted papers undergo multiple, rigorous, "blind" peer review. The transactions are:

                            IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing
                            IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing
                            IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
                            IEEE Transactions on Multimedia ( a joint publication of the IEEE Circuits and Systems,
                                 Signal Processing, Communications, and Computer Societies)
                            IEEE Sensors Journal.

As a participant in the peer review of this manuscript, you are required to complete this form and return it, within six weeks of receipt of the manuscript, to the Signal Processing Society Publications Office.   Your comments will assist the associate editor in determining the final disposition of the manuscript, and will be used to assist the author in refinement of the manuscript. Your identity will be held in confidence from the author.


I.     REVIEW

Please expand and give details in Section III.

A.    Suitability of topic

    1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?

      _____ Yes                  _____ Perhaps                _____ No

    2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?

      _____ Yes                 _____ Moderately So       _____ No (explain)

B.    Content

    1. Is the paper technically sound? If no, why not?

      _____ Yes                 _____ No

      ___________________________________________________________________________________________
      ___________________________________________________________________________________________
      ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?

      _____ Yes
      _____ Important information is missing or superficially treated.
      _____ Treatment somewhat unbalanced, but not seriously so.
      _____ Certain parts significantly overstresses.

    3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?

      _____ Superficial
      _____ Suitable for the non-specialist
      _____ Appropriate for the Generally Knowledgeable Individual Working in the Field or a Related Field
      _____ Suitable Only for an Expert

    4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?

      _____ Novel                 _____ Somewhat Novel        _____ Not Novel                              

    C.     Presentation

      1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?

        _____ Satisfactory       _____ Could be improved             _____ Poor

      2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?

        _____ Yes                  _____ No (explain)

        ___________________________________________________________________________________________
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________

      3. Is the length of the paper appropriate?  If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended, including a possible target length for the final manuscript.

        _____ Yes                  _____ No

        ___________________________________________________________________________________________
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________

      4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?

        _____ Yes                  _____ Not always                       _____ No

      5. How do you rate the English usage?

        _____ Satisfactory       _____ Needs Improvement        _____ Poor

      6. Rate the Bibliography?
        _____ Satisfactory        _____ Unsatisfactory (explain)

        ___________________________________________________________________________________________
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    1. Overall rating (check above lines)
      1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?


        __________________________________________________________________________________
                 |                                      |                                            |                                            |
                 |                                      |                                            |                                            |
          Excellent                          Good                                      Fair                                        Poor

      2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?

        __________________________________________________________________________________
                 |                                    |                                             |                                            |
                 |                                    |                                             |                                            |
        Highly Novel                Sufficiently Novel                    Slightly Novel                             Not Novel
      3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?

        __________________________________________________________________________________
                 |                                     |                                           |                                            |
                 |                                     |                                           |                                            |
        Totally Accessible        Mostly Accessible              Partially Accessible                    Inaccessible

      4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?

        __________________________________________________________________________________
                 |                                      |                                          |                                           |
                 |                                      |                                          |                                           |
        Excellent Match                Good Match                          Weak Match                       Poor Match

    II. RECOMMENDATION

                    Code

        _____     A        Publish Unaltered

        _____     AQ     Publish in Minor, Required Changes (as noted in Section III)

        _____     RQ     Review Again After Major Changes (as noted in Section III)

        _____     R        Reject (Paper is not of sufficient quality or novelty to be published in this Transactions)

        _____     R        Reject (A major rewrite is required.  Author should be encouraged to resubmit rewritten paper
                                at some later time.)         

        _____     R        Reject (Paper is seriously flawed; do not encourage resubmission.)


    III.     DETAILED COMMENTS

    Please state why you rated the paper as you did in Sections I and II. If you have indicated that revisions are required, please give the author specific guidance regarding those revision, differentiating between optional and mandatory changes.  Feel free to attach extra sheets of comments and to make notes on the manuscript.  Return this form with any manuscript pages on which you have made notations.  If you are returning only this form to the Publications Office, you may transmit it via fax to 732-562-8905.

    Comments:

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________


    CONFIDENTIAL -- THIS PAGE WILL NOT TO BE SENT TO THE AUTHOR

     

    Do you know of others who would be competent to review this paper?  If so, please provide names and contact information (e-mail and fax preferred).

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Do you consider this paper a candidate for an award for outstanding quality? If so, why?

    _____ Yes                     _____ No

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    ___________________________________________________                                                     ____________________
                    Signature of Reviewer                                                                                                             Date

     

    Name of Reviewer: ____________________________________________________________

    Reviewer Street Address: ______________________________________________________

    (no P.O. Box)         ____________________________________________________________

                                  ____________________________________________________________

    Phone Number:      ____________________________________________________________

    Fax Number:          ____________________________________________________________

    E-mail Address:     ____________________________________________________________

     

    Please return this completed form, by the Review Completion Date shown on the front page,  to IEEE Signal Processing Society, Publications Office, 445 Hoes Lane,  Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331

    If you have any questions or comments about this form, please e-mail mailto:sp.pub.infor@ieee.org, or send a fax to 732-562-8905.