Researchand Thematic Paper Review Form for EuroSPI (SPRINGER & WILEY)

EuroAsiaSPI² SPRINGER Review Form

The EuroAsiaSPI²website supports the upload of reviews. Please upload your review(s) at

Paper title:

Paper first author:

Reviewer's confidence in reviewing the paper: [1-5]: __

1 = not familiar, 5 = very familiar

Detailed review: For each of the questions give your answer according to the scale:

  1. The paper describes original and actual work in SPI [1 - 5]: __
  2. The paper gives adequate references [1-5]: __
  3. The approach / case study is appropriately described including lessons leraned [1 - 5]: __
  4. The paper references the SPI Manifesto (value or principle) or proposes an additional value to be considered in the SPI Manifesto [1 - 5]: __
  5. The paper is interesting for an industrial audience [1 - 5]: __

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

Overall Paper Decision:

1: STRONG ACCEPT

2: WEAK ACCEPT (REVISION NEEDED)

3: WEAK REJECT (MAJOR REVISION REQUIRED)

4: STRONG REJECT (NO PUBLICATION RECOMMENDED)

Reasons for recommendation to EuroAsiaSPI²:

Comments to the Author(s):

Confidential comments (for the PC),these comments DO NOT complete in the word file but complete them in the online form in the review submission

Software Process: Improvement and Practice
WILEY REVIEW FORM

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers: SPIP aims to publish excellent software process articles. Thank you for helping accomplish this goal. Comments directed to the author may be typed within this form or on a separate sheet. Please remember that this form will be returned to the author(s). The following is simply a guide to assist in your review. Please feel free to expand as necessary.

Paper #: Title:

Name of Reviewer:

Please rate the paper on the following dimensions andprovide detailed comments. Place a Bold X under your rating (1 = not at all, 7 = completely).

Not at all / Somewhat / Completely
Does this paper make a new or substantial contribution to the literature in the process area? / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
To what extent did you understand what the authors were trying to accomplish? / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
To what extent did you gain new insights (learn new things) from reading the paper? / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
How interesting or challenging would SPIP readers find the ideas in the paper? / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
If this is an empirical paper, is the methodology appropriate? / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
Is the paper competently written in either academic or technical terms? (Concepts defined? Statistics presented correctly? etc.) / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
Is the paper stylistically appropriate for a professional journal? (clear, concise, and absent of clichés) / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
Are the title, abstract and key words appropriate for the paper? Are references sufficiently complete? (Please indicate significant omissions) / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:
Poor/Not Appropriate or not Publishable / Average-Good/ Needs modifications and work / Very Good/ Publishable with little or no work
What is your overall assessment of the paper? / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Comment:

Overall Recommendation

Overall recommendation for including the paper in SPIP

Be accepted by SPIP as it stands

Be accepted with minor modifications

Comment: …………………………………….

Be returned to the author for major modifications (please be specific) with the suggestion that
the paper be resubmitted

Comment: …………………………………….

Be rejected

Be recommended for submission to a more appropriate journal (please be specific)

Comment: …………………………………….

If the paper is accepted, it should be submitted to the research session … or experience/industrial session …

General Comments to Author(s) (Type them below.)

……………………………………………………………………

© EuroSPI1 | Page