IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering
CONFIDENTIAL MANUSCRIPT REVIEW FORM
No.:
Please return by:
Review date:
Submission Type
Title:
Article
Author(s):
Communication
Reviewer:
Letter
(Confidential Review by a competent colleague is permissible.)
To the Reviewer: This form will not be forwarded to the author(s). Please indicate your general recommendations
below. Provide detailed comments on a separate page in a form suitable for transmittal to the author(s). If you do not
need to annotate the manuscript, feel free to forward your comments and your answers to the questions below via
FAX __________________________ or email _________________________.
If the paper is poorly written or seems to be excessively long, please scan it seeking only its salient points. If warranted we will
request that a revised manuscript be resubmitted for a detailed review. An excessive amount of time should not be spent correcting
spelling, syntax, and grammar errors, if there is an issue with quality of writing, please bring the problem to our attention.
Thank you for your assistance in the editorial process of the IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.
PUBLICATION RECOMMENDATION
1. Suitable for publication as (check one) an article
, a communication
, a correspondence
and:
Accept with minor changes
Accept subject to suitable revision
Revise and resubmit
2. More suitable for another Journal (please specify) _______________________________________
3. Reject, do not reconsider
MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION (1-6)
1. Does the manuscript describe original work? If it duplicates previous work, please list references. Note that manuscripts which
merely illustrate established principles and techniques are not acceptable for publication in the Journal.
2. Is the manuscript of enough importance and general interest to warrant publication in the IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering?
3. Is the manuscript technically sound? Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the data?
4. Does the manuscript make adequate reference to earlier contributions? If not please list them in comments.
5. Is the manuscript written with clarity in terms of its purpose, approach, contribution, and significance?
Does the abstract present the purpose of the manuscript and the conclusions reached?
Are the grammar and syntax adequate?
If the manuscript is poorly written, do you feel that it contains salient points that would warrant requesting a revised
manuscript?
6. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for its contribution? If the manuscript seems to be excessively long but appears to
contain salient points, which parts would you suggest be stressed or omitted in a revised manuscript?