Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Training for Technical Session Reviews – Table of Contents
1. Benefits
2. Qualifications
3. Expectations
4. Review Criteria & Ratings
5. SAE Journals
6. MyTechZone Screen Shots
Why Review Technical Papers?Benefits
Advanced access to new technology and researchStay abreast of latest researchEnsure quality papersContribute to the societyOpportunity to be seen as an expert in your fieldBegin your involvement at SAE
Why Review Technical Papers?Benefits
Acquire leadership skills:Time management Decision-making skillsProviding constructive input
Reduced registration fee to attend the conference
Qualifications
Complete on-line SAE Reviewer Traininghttp://volunteers.sae.org/reviewers.htm
Skill & expertise in the technology area of paper(s) being reviewedObjectivityWillingness to help others
Why Review Technical Papers?
Time Commitment
Varies based on number of papers reviewedOn average, 3-5 hours are required to read and review a typical manuscript for the initial review
Why Review Technical Papers?
Why Review Technical Papers?
Recognition Opportunities
Forest R. McFarland Award for outstanding reviewershttp://www.sae.org/news/awards/list/mcfarland/
Recognition after completing 10 and 20 paper reviewsOver 60 SAE Awards recognizing outstanding achievement http://www.sae.org/news/awards/
Provide quality, constructive feedback Review the technical content of the paper Assess the clarity of the presentation, text and illustration Make recommendation on manuscript acceptance or
rejection Supply numerical scores for specific review criteria Make recommendation on manuscript suitability for journal
review Adhere to deadlines
Expectations of Reviewers
Reference onlyAuthor checklist http://volunteers.sae.org/authors/checklist.pdf
Manuscript Ratings
Approved – suitable to publishApproved if Modified – needs minor or
moderate modification before considering for publication
Disapproved – requires major modification before considering for publication
Good quality constructive comments should be provided regardless of the rating selected.
Long-term reference value (Archival) Technically new, innovative or a constructive review Professional integrity Clear presentation Quality of data and validity of analytical techniques Soundness of conclusions
Technical Review CriteriaJudgment Basis Definitions
http://volunteers.sae.org/volunteers/judgmentbases.htm
Long-term reference value (archival)Would this paper's content still be relevant and likely to be cited in future work?Are the results and interpretation of lasting scientific value?Is the topic important to the field?Does the paper strengthen or extend the state of the art?
Technically new, innovative, or a constructive reviewDoes the subject matter have an interested audience today?Are ideas/information and methods worthwhile, new, or creative?Is the author the source of new information?Are analytical, numerical, or experimental results and interpretation original?Is the impact of the results clearly stated?
Technical Reviews Criteria
Professional integrityIs the paper free from commercialism?Is the paper free from personalities and bias?Is the paper clear and balanced?Is prior work of others adequately credited?Does the author avoid disparaging competitive methods or products?Are references to previous work presented constructively, in a fair and balanced manner?
Clear presentationDoes the introductory section explain motivation and orient the reader?Does the paper describe what was done, how it was done, and the key results?Does the paper stay focused on its subject?Are tables and figures clear, relevant and correct?Are the concepts clearly presented?Is the paper logically organized?Are titles and keywords used appropriately?Is the paper's length appropriate to its scope?Does the author demonstrate knowledge of basic composition skills, including word choice, sentence structure, paragraph development, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and citation of references?
Technical Reviews Criteria
Quality of data and validity of analytical techniquesIs the paper technically sound?Does the paper evaluate the strengths and limitations of the work described?Are performance metrics clearly stated?Are results clearly described?Is relevant previous research discussed adequately?Are all assumptions referenced by previous proven works?
Soundness of conclusionsAre the claims of the paper firmly established?Are conclusions sound theoretically or experimentally?Are conclusions supported by the facts presented?
Technical Reviews Criteria
Do not spend time on paper formattingDo not check each grammatical error
If the paper has poor English but is technically sound, send it back with recommendation
Expectations of ReviewersWhat Not to Do
SAE Journals highlight outstanding technical papers, especially those with long term reference value, for the scholarly research community.Journal Editors select papers based on input from organizers and reviewersLong term reference scores have more weight for journal selectionHigh scores of 8 and greater for any criteria indicate high qualityHigh scores with no Journal recommendation or low scores with recommendation, provide feedback
SAE Journals
http://store.sae.org/saejournals/
Reviewer Invitation EmailDear Melissa Jena
The following manuscript 2011-01-2469 "Chassis Dynamometer Emissions Characterization of a Urea-SCR Transit Bus" has been submitted to SAE International and is being considered for publication. Recognizing your expertise, I would be very grateful if you could review the manuscript and evaluate whether it is suitable for publication by SAE International. High-quality reviews with detailed comments, requests, and suggestions are of fundamental importance to ensure quality of accepted papers. Your review therefore must include written information; completion of just the numerical evaluation questions is not acceptable. If you would like to review this paper and can do so by 12/15/2011, please login to www.sae.org/mytechzone, select “My Review Invitations” and accept the review invitation. If you do not wish to review this paper, please login to www.sae.org/mytechzone and decline the review invitation. In this case I would be very appreciative of alternative reviewer suggestions. These can be emailed to my attention. Help on how to use MyTechZone can be requested via your SAE staff representative below. General information for reviewers of SAE papers can be found at http://volunteers.sae.org/ Bridget Struble( 724 )772 [email protected] Sincerely, Melissa Jena( 724 )772 [email protected] P.S. To log in, use your SAE userID: [email protected]
SAE Login User ID
Judgment Basis Definitionshttp://volunteers.sae.org/volunteers/judgmentbases.htm
