wpe41.gif (23084 bytes)CIS5394: Decision Making and Expert Systems
(Current Issues in CIS)
Spring 2004

Final Paper Refereeing

The 'rules' for reviewing the final paper follow those for reviewing the rough draft (again, adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University; They are repeated here to save you the effort of having to go back to the rough draft reviewing site). There is one additional rating area: Referee Recommendations. This is quite common when reviewing papers for a journal: You are to make a suggestion to the editor regarding the feasibility of publishing the paper in the journal.

As always, Each paper will be assigned two referees. Each referee will be required to read the paper and evaluate it in the eight areas given below.  Each area (Except for suggestions and recommendations to the editor) requires a rating on a 7 point scale as well as a 2-3 sentence critique. All submissions are to be made from the submissions page.

{adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University}

A critique of a conceptual article examines the logic of the arguments made by the authors. Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. Explain and justify each of your critique points in at least 2-3 sentences.

Specific issues to address in a critique of a conceptual article include:

  1. LOGICAL CONSISTENCY: Does the article suffer from inner contradictions or logical errors that are not acknowledged by the authors?
  2. COHERENCE: Does the article develop an argument that follows a coherent line of reasoning? Are the boundaries of the argument reasonably well defined, and does the argument anticipate most, if not all, rival arguments?
  3. SUBSTANCE: Does the article provide an argument or a line of reasoning that offers insight into important issues, or does it merely summarize previous studies in a way that does not reflect depth of analysis? Does the article offer a model to guide future thinking about the issue the author is addressing?
  4. CONTRIBUTION: Do the authors clearly articulate an issue that is salient (relevant and current) to a particular scientific issue or managerial problem? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance to practice is evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the article likely to be useful to researchers and managers?
  5. NOVELTY: Does the article make an original contribution?
  6. FOCUS: Is there a clear audience that the authors address? Was the article written at the appropriate level for this audience?

In addition to evaluating the paper based on the six areas above, there are two additional submissions to be made:

  1. REFEREE'S SUGGESTIONS. Each referee will submit a paragraph or two of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. In other words, what they would do to improve the paper.
  2. REFEREE'S RECOMMENDATION. Whenever a referee returns their comments to the editor, they are required to indicate how they feel they paper should be handled. The options are:
    Not suitable for publication
    Reassess after major changes
    Accept for publication with minor changes
    Accept for publication without changes

For Questions 1 through 6, Each referee will Rate each area using the following scale.

   Very                          Below                                                             Above                      Absolutely
   Poor                         Average                      Average                    Average                     Perfect!!!
   1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8        9

The referee Must submit their Reviews using the SUBMISSION FORM by the date given in the course schedule.

This page was last updated on 01/20/04