Next conf:
March 2012
http://www.thaisim.org/ts12/

Thai version under construction

page hits
since 1 Sept 09

Thai time

 SGLD pages >  • Up • Ed Board • OnLine First • Issues • Ms evaluation • Check list • Tips •

Ms evaluation

Journal of Simulation/Gaming for Learning and Development
ISSN 2158-5539

All ms submitted for publication in SGLD are evaluated blind by peer reviewers - usually two, sometimes three.  This page is mostly for reviewers, but it is made available here so that authors know the criteria use to evaluate their ms.

     Authors:

For authors, this page will give you an idea of the criteria used to review your ms.  You will get copies of the reviewers' commentaries, but not usually the evaluation tables.  Keep this page in mind as you write your article.  Do not forget to use the check list, the SGLD Publication Guide and the Tips page.

     Reviewers:

For reviewers, this page provides the tools that you will need to do your review.
The rest of this page is addressed to the reviewer (not the author).
You may also wish to consult the author guide.

Your review of the ms

Here are some guidelines to help you, the reviewer:

Please do your review within one month. If you are not able to complete your review within 4 weeks, pls notify the Editor immediately.

Your review is in two parts: a table and a commentary.

The whole (both parts) of your review should be in one single e-mail message.

Pls keep the email subject line of the Editor's original request to evaluate.

Send your review to the Editor - addressed to sgld.editor |@| gmail.com:

Evaluation tables

Part 1:  Quality of ms

Please copy this table into your email.  Use "XX" or the number to indicate your evaluation for each criterion.

0  =  Low,  unacceptable,  poor
1  =  Fair,  average,  acceptable
2  =  High,  good,  excellent

Part 2:  Publication recommendation

Please copy your level of recommendation and paste it into the email just after the quality of ms table.  (If the colour copies too, that is ok.)

Commentary

Guidelines for writing commentaries:

For articles we accept, the author needs your commentary to revise his/her article to bring it in line with the standards we require for the journal.

Provide all your substantive commentary in one half to two pages (single spaced).

If it is a research article, please comment (where appropriate) on: statement of research problem/aims, review of previous research, description of study, data collection procedure, appropriacy & validity of instrumentation, data analysis, conclusions drawn, implications/recommendations, clarity & suitability of statistical tables.

If it is a theoretical, conceptual, descriptive or review article, please comment (where appropriate) on: statement of problem/aims, literature review, ideas/concepts, originality, argumentation, reasoning, 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?

Pls pay special attention to authors' hidden or unquestioned underlying assumptions.  Broad (or even bland) statements of 'truth' need to be substantiated by quoting supporting research (if possible, more than simply quoting other people's opinions).

If an article is acceptable, but needs revision, it is vital to spell out 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 it.

If you are enthusiastic about the manuscript or about aspects of it, please convey 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 considered the journal.  S/he may thus also be encouraged to submit another article in the future.

Pls include all review materials inside your email.  If you really must mark the ms itself, then insert your comments in the word file in a different colour.  Do not use the inbuilt editing function.  Attach the file to the email.

Thank you for your valuable work.