ThaiSim: The Thai Simulation and Gaming Association - สมาคมสถานการณ์จำลองและเกมแห่งประเทศไทย
Proceedings review criteria
     To stay in touch, please join our group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2376328&trk   
• Up
 Up

Next conf:
March 2012

http://www.thaisim.org/ts12/

Top
Conferences
Journal SGLD
Resources
Association

Thai version under construction

Our Disclaimer


page hits
since 1 Sept 09


Thai time

free counters


 Review criteria  for ThaiSim  conference proceedings

As author, you should look carefully at the criteria below to help you write your paper to submit to the proceedings.

Please remember that, as author submitting a paper for publication in the proceedings, you may have to review a paper in return.  Failure to do this, may result in your own paper being withdrawn.

As reviewer, you will use the guide below to review a paper submitted for publication in the proceedings.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for doing your review.  Please do it within the deadline that you are given.  If you cannot do it within the deadline, please tell the Editor immediately; do not wait until the deadline to say.

Send your review in the body of a email, not in an attachment.  Always use this address  ts.proceedings |@| gmail.com  to send your review, even if you received the request to review from another email address. 

Your review will be in two parts:

bulletA.  Criteria
bulletB.  Commentary

A.  Criteria.  Please use the criteria below to evaluate the ms that the proceedings editor will send you to review.  You may use the criterion name and level.  For example:

scope = almost = the article seems to be task-based learning; simulation and gaming content is not apparent; author must show clear relevance to simulation/gaming

guide = some = several important things to do, for example, make shorter sentences and paragraphs

debriefing = inadequate = as this paper is about a learning game, the author must include a proper discussion of debriefing

etc

Specify.  An evaluation level (see below) that has the word "specify" means "specify the changes that the author needs to make when they revise their ms for the next version".

Criteria for v1 and v2 of ms.  If v2 is not done completely, then reject, but do commentary to explain why to the author. Levels & evaluation  
  v1 v2

Scope.  Does the paper fall clearly within the topic areas covered by ThaiSim?  Papers on topics outside the scope of ThaiSim's interests will be rejected.  Please do not try to disguise another topic under the cloak or guise of simulation/gaming if it clearly does not include anything related to simulation/gaming.

__Within
__Mostly (specify)
__Some (specify &/or reject)
__Outside (reject)
__Within
__Mostly (specify)
__Some (reject)

Guide & formatting.  Is the paper written exactly according to the Author Guide for ThaiSim Proceedings?  Examples of things to note: 'but', 'that', short sentences, active sentences, page formatting, reviewer comments & author responses, etc.

__Yes
__Mostly (specify)
__Some (specify &/or reject)
__No or not much (reject)
__Yes
__Mostly (specify)
__Some / none (reject)

Literature.  Does the paper cite the important and relevant literature, especially to support statements and claims.

__Yes
__Mostly (specify)
__Some (specify &/or reject)
__None (reject)
__Yes
__Mostly (specify)
__Some / none (reject)

Debriefing.  Does the paper mention debriefing adequately, where appropriate.  Example: a research paper will mention debriefing if the research is about learning from a game; a theory paper about the experiential learning process will discus the role of debriefing in that process; a practical paper will provide full guidelines on how the debriefing was or should be done.  If debriefing is not part of any procedure or discussion, then some justification must be made about why debriefing is not relevant.  Absence of discussion on debriefing must be justified.

__Yes
__Insufficient (specify=
__Inadequate (specify &/or reject)
__No, but proper justification given in paper (accept)
__No, and no justification provided (reject)
  __Yes
__Insufficient / Inadequate (reject)
__No, but proper justification given in paper (accept)
__No, and no justification provided (reject)

Length.  Is the paper more than 5k words?  If so, instruct author to shorten.  Does the content justify the length.  If too long, specify things that could be shortened.  If too short, specify things on which you would like more detail or further explanation.

__Under 5k
__Too long (specify)
__About right (say ok)
__Too short (specify)
__Under 5k (ok)
__Too long (reject)

Other.  Indicate other criteria here (specific to the subject of the paper).

   

B.  CommentaryPlease write a short commentary about the paper that you review, following these guidelines.  For articles we accept, the author needs your commentary to revise his/her article.

Please write your review commentary in English.  If you are a non-native, pls do not worry about your English here; mistakes are ok here; your English does not need to be perfect, only understandable; .  (However, as an author, the language, Thai or English in your ms, needs to be perfect).

Provide all your substantive commentary in less than one page.

bullet It should cover the main points, mostly in regard to content (ideas, method, results, arguments, coherence, debriefing, etc.).
bullet You may also make some comments about form (language, writing style, presentation, clarity of table and figures, etc.).

If it is a research paper, please comment (where appropriate) on: statement of research objectives, lit review, method, data collection procedure & instruments, analysis, discussion, conclusions, implications & recommendations, clarity & suitability of statistical tables.

If it is a theoretical, conceptual, descriptive or review paper, please comment (where appropriate) on: statement of aims, literature review, ideas/concepts, originality, argumentation, reasoning, logic, overall coherence of framework/description, validity of hidden/underlying assumptions, conclusions, implications/recommendations.

If it is a practical, 'how-to' article, pls comment on clarity of instructions, feasibility of indications, coherence, ease of understanding (incl plenty of diagrams / pictures).  If the article includes a game, can the game be played easily from the materials provided or from materials easily available elsewhere?  Are the debriefing materials adequate?

If a paper is acceptable, but needs revision, it is important to give clear suggestions or requirements regarding such revision, accompanied by some words of encouragement.  It is ok to specify what is wrong with a ms, but you must then indicate ways in which you think the author can fix them.

If you are enthusiastic about the manuscript or about aspects of it, please say this as well.  All authors are pleased to receive well-earned compliments.

For articles that we reject, it is still important for us to supply feedback, even if only as a mark of respect and of acknowledgement that the author has submitted their work for scrutiny.

All review materials must be inside your email.  Do not mark the word ms file or send it back.

Thank you for your valuable work.

 

  Please join our professional group on LinkedIn 

• Up

Locations of visitors to this page

(c) 2009 by ThaiSim - www.thasim.org - Thai Simulation and Gaming Association - สมาคมสถานการณ์จำลองและเกมแห่งประเทศไทย