Journal of Graphics Tools Review Form
Paper Number: Paper Title: Author(s):
1. Is it clear what the paper is offering? (E.g., what problem is being solved)
From reading the title and abstract, can the reader know what to expect the "take-aways" to be? And does it then deliver these? What type of paper is it? Trick/Hack Original Technique/Algorithm Novel Research Idea Experience/Advice Survey Tutorial Production Notes Please summarize what the paper offers.
2. Is it a new idea or is it a new presentation of existing ideas? (The paper should be explicit about this.)
If it's a new idea, has it been sufficiently proven or "battle-tested"? (An idea may be worthy as research but not mature enough to be considered a tool.) If it's a presentation of existing ideas, is this presentation better than existing texts or literature? "Better" can mean: Clearer than existing literature. Fills in gaps in existing literature. The existing ideas are put together in a new and useful way. The existing ideas are applied here to computer graphics. The presentation is better-suited to the jgt audience. Existing literature is too obscure for the jgt audience.
3. Is the paper written simply and clearly?
(See the jgt style guide notes on presenting a tool.)
Is it well organized? Is the language clear and readable? Are there appropriate figures? (Not too few or too many?) Are the figures clear? Is the bibliography adequate? (Not too little or too much?)
Is there appropriate background and introduction? (Not too little or too much?) Is the paper "short and sweet"? (Will readers be happy to read all the way through it?)
4. Does the paper present a useful tool? (Will jgt readers want to try out the idea or technique in the paper?)
How relevant and important is the topic? Does the paper: Provide general education? Suggest a new way to accomplish a task? Save the reader from going down false trails? Save the reader from working out details? How unobvious is the idea or technique? (If it's the first thing a competent graduate student would try, it's too obvious. If it's the fourth, it could be worth publishing.)
5 Is the paper practicable? (If jgt readers try out the idea or tool in the paper, will they be glad they did?)
Is it complete and sufficiently detailed? Is it sufficiently focused? (Does it avoid straying into irrelevancies that the reader must filter out?) Does it address all singularities, degeneracies, boundary conditions, and special cases? Does it honestly discuss drawbacks and limitations? Overall, could a reader immediately and easily make use of the content? "Make use" can include: Make use of source code. Make use of pseudocode. Make use of ideas. Make use of knowledge.
6. Recommendation:
Accept as is. Accept with minor changes. Resubmit after major changes. Reject. Submit elsewhere. Please explain.
7. Please add any additional comments.