Research Methods in Evolutionary Computing

Spring Semester 2020 Paper Review Form

Numeric Score Assessment Items

Scores range from 1 (worst) to 5 (best)

• RELEVANCE: Is the subject of this paper relevant to this workshop on evolutionary computing?
• SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM: Is the subject of the paper important?
• ORIGINALITY OF THE WORK: Does the paper presents an original contribution to the scientific field?
• ACHIEVEMENT OF STATED OBJECTIVE: Does the paper clearly establish its main point (problem, issue, etc.) and stay focused and deliver on this stated objective?
• WRITING QUALITY: How good is the organization, sentence structure, mechanics (e.g., figures, tables), spelling, and, above all, the clarity of this paper? Please suggest ways to improve the readability of the paper in the "Comments to Authors" box below.
• REPLICABILITY: If the paper describes an experiment, is there adequate information in the paper to permit replication of the experiment?
• TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS: Is the paper technically well developed? If experimental results are described, are these results investigated for statistical significance?
• RELATED WORK: Is this work appropriately situated within the context of both seminal work and the state-of-the-art as it relates to both the problem(s) addressed and the solution approach(es) utilized, including appropriate citations?
• ABSOLUTE RECOMMENDATION OF PAPER: Based on your opinion of what should and should not be accepted at this workshop on evolutionary computing. The values of all reviews of the paper will be averaged. The average value will then be directly used for the paper ranking. Based on this paper ranking, the decision for rejection/poster/paper will be derived. The values will be interpreted as follows:
  • 1 - not ready for publication, resubmit when research has significantly progressed
  • 2 - needs major revision and then a rereview
  • 3 - needs a minor revision and then a rereview
  • 4 - needs a minor revision, but no rereview
  • 5 - accept as-is for publication
• CONFIDENCE: This concerns the reviewer's confidence.

Comments for Authors