Dear reviewer,
First, please indicate which
categories (you may select more than one) best fit the manuscript by typing YES
where appropriate:
Research (novel theoretical or algorithmic contribution):
System (clear presentation of an impressive system with a novel architecture or application):
Application (innovative and successful use of a technology for an important application):
Survey (organization and in-depth review of prior art of an important topic):
Lecture (novel and illuminating presentation of known concepts that may be used for teaching):
The rest of the review has five parts. The detailed guidelines provided here will save you time, will inform you as to how your input will be used, and will help ensure consistency across reviews. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with them.
1) OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT
Here, you should consider the appropriateness, clarity, correctness, and novelty of the manuscript and, for each one of these criteria, decide whether it is acceptable, fixable (with minor revisions), flawed (requiring major revisions), or not reviewable (until the authors provide the missing information or clarification). You should include a brief explanation of each rating.
A manuscript with one or more clearly flawed rating (as agreed by most reviewers) will be rejected. The
authors may be invited to submit a revised version, but the new version will go
through a full review and may end-up being assigned to other Associate Editors
and reviewers, if the original ones are not available.
Authors of a manuscript with one or more clearly not reviewable rating will be asked to
provide a revised version that contains the missing information or required
clarifications. Note that this option does not necessarily entail a major
revision. It is designed to avoid reviewers
wasting their time trying to interpret papers which
are unclear, poorly structured, not properly positioned in the context of prior
art, missing proofs or details, or lacking detailed or convincing results.
Papers for which all ratings are either acceptable or fixable will be considered for acceptance. The decision to accept
or reject these acceptable or fixable papers will be taken by the
Editor-in-Chief upon the recommendations of the two Associate Editors who have
reviewed the manuscript. These recommendations will be primarily based on the objective judgment, but will also take
into account the subjective impact
evaluation (as discussed below) provided by all reviewers. If recommended
for acceptance, fixable papers will be accepted with the provision that the
authors submit a revised version where all the required changes have been
executed or convincingly disputed. The Associate Editor responsible for the
submission will either decide that the required changes have been performed
satisfactorily or ask the other reviewers to evaluate them.
1-a) Appropriateness
Please assess whether the manuscript fits the scope of GMOD and follows the current practices of scientific publications.
A manuscript fits the scope if its topic is of interest to
you or if you believe that it will interest a non-negligible fraction of the GMOD readership (see http://ees.elsevier.com/gmod/ for examples of topics). The paper should include
the usual elements (header, abstract, problem statement, prior art, statement
of novel contributions, detailed description of contribution with accompanying
figures, results, discussion of limitations, conclusions, references) and
should be written in a precise scientific style. Note that we do not require
that submitted manuscripts follow a particular format. Hence typesetting and
formatting should not be considered as criteria for appropriateness at this
point. GMOD may accept long papers, provided that the
content justifies the length.
Please select one of the
following ratings (by writing YES next to it):
Appropriateness is acceptable (as is):
Appropriateness is fixable (with minor revisions):
Appropriateness is flawed (requiring major revisions):
Appropriateness is not reviewable (authors must provide missing information or clarification):
Please provide a short
justification of your assessment or explain why you are not able to provide an
answer:
1-b) Clarity
Please assess the readability and clarity of the manuscript.
A manuscript is clear if a reader reasonably familiar with
prior art published in GMOD or other journals in
geometric modeling, graphics, animation will understand the content of the
paper, including the precise nature of the problem solved or issue addressed
and the details of the contribution.
Please select one of the
following ratings (by writing YES next to it):
Clarity is acceptable (as is):
Clarity is fixable (with minor revisions):
Clarity is flawed (requiring major revisions):
Clarity is not reviewable (authors must provide missing information or clarification):
Please provide a short
justification of your assessment or explain why you are not able to provide an
answer:
1-c) Correctness
Please assess the rigor of the exposition and the correctness of the statements in the manuscript.
Amongst other constraints, in a correct manuscript, all
non-standard technical terms and notations are defined; all important novel
claims are either proven in the manuscript or associated with references where
these claims are proven; all derivations, formulae, proofs, and conclusions are
free from errors; all discussions of prior art are correctly interpreting it;
the algorithm or solution appears to work properly for the domain for which the
authors claims that it should work; conclusions derived from empirical tests
are valid.
Please select one of the
following ratings (by writing YES next to it):
Correctness is acceptable (as is):
Correctness is fixable (with minor revisions):
Correctness is flawed (requiring major revisions):
Correctness is not reviewable (authors must provide missing information or clarification):
Please provide a short
justification of your assessment or explain why you are not able to provide an
answer:
1-d) Novelty
Please assess the novelty of the reported contribution.
Note that here we are not asking you to judge whether the
proposed technique is better than prior art. We only ask whether, in your
opinion, the significant contributions that the authors claim to be novel are
indeed novel. You will evaluate the significance of the proposed improvements
and their utility in the subjective section.
Please select one of the
following ratings (by writing YES next to it):
Novelty is acceptable (as is):
Novelty is fixable (with minor revisions):
Novelty is flawed (requiring major revisions):
Novelty is not reviewable (authors must provide missing information or clarification):
Please provide a short
justification of your assessment or explain why you are not able to provide an
answer:
1-e) Summary of the objective judgment
Please select one (only one) of
the following ratings for the entire paper (by writing YES next to it):
The paper is acceptable (as is):
The paper is fixable (with minor revisions):
The paper is flawed (requiring major revisions):
The paper is not reviewable (authors must provide missing information or clarification):
2) REQUIRED CHANGES
If you have rated the manuscript as fixable or not reviewable, please list here all the changes that you believe the authors must make to the manuscript. These should be changes that you believe the authors are willing and capable of doing.
Commonly requested changes include: to provide a clear
statement of the problem solved or of the novel contribution; to provide a
clear and intuitive outline of the structure of the proposed approach or
algorithm; to fix major technical ambiguities, inconsistencies, or error; to
properly discuss the limitations of the proposed technique; to explain in depth
its similarities and differences with a specific and relevant prior art; or to
provide convincing test cases showing the reliability or benefits of the
proposed solution; or simply to rewrite specific passages that cannot be
understood in their present form. Do not list here the details (typos, style),
the missing—but not essential—references, nor the improvements that
you would like to see but are not really required. These go in the Details
section.
Please list required changes
here:
3) DETAILS
Here, please list all (if not too numerous) the small problems that you have noticed. Be as specific as possible.
These include typos; formatting or consistency problems
with the notation, equations, figures, or references; or grammatical and
stylistic errors. Important mistakes that significantly affect the clarity or
correctness of the work (such as missing or incorrect definitions and incorrect
formulae) should be listed under required changes.
Please list details here:
4) SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
Here, you should list everything that you have not mentioned above, but think the authors may want to do to improve their papers. These will be considered as suggestions and will not be required.
Typical suggestions include removing redundant parts;
adding clarifications, figures or details that may help the reader; adding relevant
prior art (provide the citation and the reason for discussing it); changing the
structure of the paper for increased clarity; including results of suggested
experiments. Feel free to include such suggestions for authors of rejected
papers.
Please list suggested
improvements here:
5) SUBJECTIVE IMPACT EVALUATION
Here, you should rate (4=exceptional, 3=excellent, 2=average, 1=weak, 0=absent) the quality of the reported contribution against four criteria: inspiration, education, beauty, and utility.
You are invited to provide explanations for these ratings
(for example, stating what aspect of the paper you liked) but should not try to
justify them. They should reflect your personal subjective opinion. These
ratings will be used in the final accept/reject decision. They will be used to
track the quality of the GMOD
submissions over time and to help the Editorial Board adjust the threshold of
subjective impact for acceptance. These ratings will also be used to identify
the Òhigh impact papersÓ that will be aggressively promoted by GMOD and that will be consider for the yearly GMOD Best Paper Award.
5-a) Inspiration measures the expected impact of the work on future research.
A novel idea that is likely to change the way researchers
or practitioners solve a particular problem or an idea that opens a novel and
strategic direction for the field and is likely to be followed by others should
be rated 4.
Inspiration rating (a number between 0 and 4):
5-b) Education measures the value of the paper as a tool to provide the reader with a clear and deep understanding of a particular aspect of the field.
A paper that would be on a Òmust readÓ list for a graduate
course or qualifier exam should be rated 4.
Education rating (a number
between 0 and 4):
5-c) Beauty
measures the elegance of the proposed solution or formulation.
If you had pleasure discovering it and canÕt wait to share
it with your colleagues or students, give it a 4.
Beauty rating (a number between 0
and 4):
5-d) Utility
measures the practical value that some GMOD readers
may derive from the paper.
A powerful concept or a simple formulation that many will
want to use in their work, or actual source code that the authors have posted
that you believe others will use deserves a 4.
Utility rating (a number between
0 and 4):
5-e) Summary of the subjective evaluation
Please
enter here the total of the four
subjective ratings (a number between 0 and 16):