Transcript SAE Technical Paper Reviewer Training

SAE Technical Paper
Reviewer Training
Training for Technical Session Reviews –
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Benefits
Qualifications
Expectations
Review Criteria & Ratings
SAE Journals
MyTechZone Screen Shots
Why Review Technical Papers?
Benefits
 Advanced access to new technology and research
 Stay abreast of latest research
 Ensure quality papers
 Contribute to the society
 Opportunity to be seen as an expert in your field
 Begin your involvement at SAE
Why Review Technical Papers?
Benefits
 Acquire leadership skills:
Time management
Decision-making skills
Providing constructive input
 Reduced registration fee to attend the conference
Why Review Technical Papers?
Qualifications
 Complete on-line SAE Reviewer Training
http://volunteers.sae.org/reviewers.htm
 Skill & expertise in the technology area of paper(s)
being reviewed
 Objectivity
 Willingness to help others
Why Review Technical Papers?
Time Commitment
 Varies based on number of papers reviewed
 On average, 3-5 hours are required to read and
review a typical manuscript for the initial review
Why Review Technical Papers?
Recognition Opportunities
 Forest R. McFarland Award for outstanding reviewers
http://www.sae.org/news/awards/list/mcfarland/
 Recognition after completing 10 and 20 paper
reviews
 Over 60 SAE Awards recognizing outstanding
achievement http://www.sae.org/news/awards/
Expectations of Reviewers
 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
Reference only
Author checklist http://volunteers.sae.org/authors/checklist.pdf
Manuscript Ratings
Approved – suitable to publish
Approved 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.
Technical Review Criteria
Judgment Basis Definitions
http://volunteers.sae.org/volunteers/judgmentbases.htm
 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 Reviews Criteria
 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 review
Does 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 integrity
Is 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 presentation
Does 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 techniques
Is 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 conclusions
Are the claims of the paper firmly established?
Are conclusions sound theoretically or experimentally?
Are conclusions supported by the facts presented?
Expectations of Reviewers
What Not to Do
Do not spend time on paper formatting
Do not check each grammatical error
 If the paper has poor English but is technically sound, send it back
with recommendation
Quality Reviews with Constructive Feedback
˭
High Quality Technical Papers!
SAE Journals
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 reviewers
 Long term reference scores have more weight for journal
selection
 High scores of 8 and greater for any criteria indicate high
quality
 High scores with no Journal recommendation or low scores
with recommendation, provide feedback
http://store.sae.org/saejournals/
Reviewer Invitation Email
Dear 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 8588
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Melissa Jena
( 724 )772 4008
[email protected]
P.S. To log in, use your SAE userID: [email protected]
SAE Login User ID
MyTechZone Reviewer
Screens
My Review Invitations
Judgment Basis Definitions
http://volunteers.sae.org/volunteers/judgmentbases.htm
Click on “My Reviewer
Expertise” to update
your reviewer profile at
any time.
Questions?
Contact SAE Customer Service
[email protected]
1-877-606-7323
724-776-4970