Guidelines on Paper Reviewing for T-RO
As you know, prompt peer review is essential to advance research in Robotics. As a researcher, author, and member of our community, we hope that you will volunteer your time periodically to carefully review submitted papers. We respect your expertise and realize that your time is valuable.
When you receive a request to review a paper, please download the paper as soon as possible to check that it is within your expertise and confirm that you can commit to completing the review within 30 days. We estimate it requires 1-4 hours to review a T-RO submission.
Also check that you don't have a conflict of interest (if you are on the same campus with a co-author or have written a paper with a co-author in the past 5 years). If so notify the assigning editor immediately.
When writing reviews, please put yourself into the position of the authors. You want detailed and constructive feedback. If the paper is not appropriate or needs to be revised for publication, please convey specifically how it can be improved.
The key part of your review is the Advice to Authors, which should be at least 200 words.
This is a body of text that should include these 5 parts:
A summary of the paper's main contributions in your own words (be careful not to simply restate the Abstract or Note to Practitioners).
Your evaluation of how well the paper reviews Related Work. For this part use Google, CiteSeer, or your library using keywords from the paper. You can suggest that the authors reference specific related papers you find, especially journal papers from the last 2-3 years.
Your evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Be careful to offer constructive suggestions about how the authors might address each of the latter.
Suggestions on specific edits to fix, for example figures that are unclear or typos.
A short summary of your overall evaluation and recommendation.
In your detailed comments to the author, please be specific. If you believe that the results are already known, please give references to earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If you say that the reasoning is incorrect or vague, please indicate specifically where and why. If you suggest that the paper be rewritten, give specific suggestions as to which parts of the paper should be deleted, amplified or modified.
If the paper includes supplemental materials, data, code, videos, etc please evaluate this in the Comments Section. Is it consistent with the paper content? Does it enhance the paper quality? If it is a video, how is the technical quality? Is it free of commercialism?
Your review will be carefully read by the Associate Editor who will make a recommendation to the Editor, who will make a decision on accept or reject and notify the authors.
See also: The Task of the Referee, by Alan Smith.
Thank you again for your service as an IEEE Technical Reviewer.