Gdynia Maritime University » Faculty of Navigation » Navigation Department » TransNav 2009
ORGANIZERS
News About us Contact Organizational Committee Honarary Committee Department of Navigation
SYMPOSIUM
Honorary Fellowship
of TransNav Scientific Programme
Committee (rewriters) Topics Round Table Panel Session Deadlines Accommodation Partners Sponsors Media partners
Photo Gallery
 Papers submitted Symposium Program Program Overview Chairmen List Participants' List
FOR AUTHORS
Submit Paper Editors instruction Announcements Symposium fee Useful Information for Speakers Chaiman Card: The Best Presentation Award
FOR PAPER REVIEWERS
Guidelines for
Paper Review Paper Review Form
PREVIOUS SYMPOSIUMS
TransNav 2007
Guidelines for Paper Review
  1. Paper description:
    • describe the summary and list key (most essential) ideas
    • what were the main contributions ?
  2. What are the most important reasons to accept the paper [when you review for a conference/ journal] or why you like this work ?
  3. What are the most important reasons to reject the paper [when you review for a conference/ journal] or why you dislike this work ?

    4. Possible reasons:
    • has serious technical mistakes (describe them)
    • isn't novel (provide/suggest related work/papers)
    • doesn't demonstrate (all) its point by proofs, simulations, experiments (be specific)
    • makes unreasonalbe assumptions (describe them)
  4. Detailed comments on the paper
    • what did you learn reading the paper ?
    • what are the technical things that you appreciated ?
  5. Comments on their references & related work:
    • how does the paper relate with other works/projects/papers ?
    • which of them have been cited and which you know that are related by they have not been referenced by the authors
  6. Comment its presentation style:
    • does the paper describe clearly its goals ?
    • did the paper deliver what originally promised ?
    • what were the motivations (what issues/problems inspired this research), assumptions (of the setting, requirements), contributions ?
    • is the bibliography format/list of keywords complete ?
    • Are the figures readable ? Can you see the trend ? Do they explain the trend or "strange behaviour" ? Do the results in the figures make sense ? If not, mention it in the review. Raise questions...
    • list any writing style remarks/corrections (english grammar/syntax, spelling) ...
  7. Make concrete suggestions for how to improve the paper:

    8. list your recommendations. Be constructive and clear.
  8. Do you have any unanswered questions on the paper ?