1. Your task as a review is not just to help us decide which paper to accept or reject
for the conference, but also to help authors improve their work Please keep this
mission in mind as you write your manuscript reviews. In order to achieve this goal,
we ask you to provide some depth to your reviews, and be supportive in tone and
content. A typical review is about a page or two in length; while there is variation in
length, please note that one or two sentence reviews are not helpful to the authors.
2. Please write as if you were speaking to the author directly about his or her
manuscript. This will facilitate a more “friendly” tone. For example, say “Your writing
is very clear and interesting” instead of “The author’s writing is very clear and
3. An empirical paper has four major parts. A conceptual paper does not have a
Method part. Please comment on each aspect of the paper.
a. Introduction – is the research problem clearly stated? Does the author
clearly explain why the research topic is important and how this paper will
advance our knowledge on the topic?
b. Theory and hypotheses – Does the literature reviewed relate to the
research problem? Are the hypotheses reasonable and interesting? Is
the conceptual logic (theory) well explained and convincing?
c. Method – Is the sample appropriate for the study? What is the quality of
the measures? Are the statistical approaches relevant? Does the
research design fit the hypotheses?
d. Results and discussion – Are the results interesting and significant?
Does the discussion offer new insight on the phenomenon and provide
important suggestions for future research?
4. It is helpful if you use a “numbering” system to make your points. Number each
suggestion or comment within each of the main parts as described above. This
helps you to organize your feedback
5. Be specific about the problem you see and offer any suggestions wherever
possible. Therefore, you are a “coach” as well as a “judge”.
6. Try to find positive features of the manuscripts as well as identifying problems. Even
for manuscripts with serious problems that may not be able to be rectified, it is
encouraging to provide some positive feedback to the author.
7. Please do not make statements such as “this manuscript should be accepted,” or
“this manuscript has a good chance of being accepted,” or “this manuscript should
not be accepted,” etc. In other words, please do not comment on the possible
ultimate outcome of the manuscript.
8. After you have completed and sent back the review, please delete the manuscript
immediately. All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared with others.