Reviewer Evaluation Form

Name of Reviewer:		_______________________________________

Department of Reviewer: 	_______________________________________

Title of paper:			_______________________________________

                                _______________________________________

Name of Author(s):		_______________________________________

Department of Author(s):	_______________________________________

Assign a score from 1 to 5 in each of the areas below.  A score of 1 is 
poor (reject), a score of 3 is average, and a score of 5 is excellent 
(accept).

__________     Technical content - Was the paper accurate?  Was previous 
               work by others in this or related areas researched and 
               referenced?  Were reputable, reliable sources used for the 
               research?

__________     Organization & writing style - Was the paper well organized?
               Did the paper have a purpose, description of the author’s 
               methodology and activities, results, and conclusion?  Is 
               the writing style grammatically correct with smooth 
               transition between topics?

__________     Clarity - Were the purpose, description of methodology, 
               activities, and conclusions clearly described?

__________     Significance - Is the topic timely, relevant, important, 
               and/or does it have a broad appeal?

Overall Recommendation:

_________      Accept

_________      Accept with revisions (see below)

_________      Reject

Reviewer’s confidence in the subject matter
(  ) high		(  ) medium		(  ) low

Suggestions for revisions:

Comments to be returned to the author (Make comments as constructive as 
possible; each paper represents a substantial investment of time and energy, 
and your remarks should not be frivolous or derogatory).







Confidential comments are not sent to the author.  These comments are used to 
reinforce your ratings and to help the editorial board make the decision of 
whether to accept or reject the paper.