|
|
Next
conf:
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A. Criteria | |
| B. 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. Commentary. Please 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.
| It should cover the main points, mostly in regard to content (ideas, method, results, arguments, coherence, debriefing, etc.). | |
| 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
• (c) 2009 by ThaiSim - www.thasim.org - Thai Simulation and Gaming Association - สมาคมสถานการณ์จำลองและเกมแห่งประเทศไทย |