Paper No. X
Evaluation and comments:
Paper focus and content
Please, summarize the major content focus of the proposed paper.
Quality of the paper
Topic related to Simulation in Production / Logistics:
Is this topic related to simulation, or to a topic in direct connection to simulation (optimisation, visualisation, digital factory, ...)?
Is it interesting to the ASIM community, or should it be better presented to a different conference?
If not "Very significant"/"Significant", please, explain the reasons or the topics to be improved, or
Please select from:
propose another event to present the paper (if possible and adequate).
Very significant
Significant
Less significant
Not acceptable
Originality and novelty:
According to your knowledge, has the content of this paper or a very similar one been published already? (where?)
Is the content new in some aspects, or does the paper report experiences from simulation application for a new purpose?
Is this new research? Are results unique and relevant?
If "Known research", please, explain the existing research.
Please select from:
New research
Partially new
research
New application of
known research
Known research
Quality of content:
Does it address a clear topic?
Does the paper provide evidence of real or potential application in industry?
Are there any errors of fact or logic?
If not "Very good"/"Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Please select from:
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
Presentation of the paper
Title:
Does the title accurately describe the contents of the paper? Does the title cover the contents of the paper?
Is the title too long or too short?
Please select from:
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
If not "Very good” or “Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Abstract:
Does the abstract accurately describe the contents of the paper? Is the abstract well-structured?
Is the abstract too long or too short?
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
If not "Very good” or “Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Structure and Clarity:
Is the paper well-structured? Is the paper balanced in its parts (e.g. Problem description - approach - results)? Are there any
errors of fact or logic? Should the text be condensed or expanded? Is the paper too brief for clarity? Is the paper too
comprehensive and should be shortend? Does the paper contain irrelevant material?
If not "Very good” or “Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
Language:
Is the language satisfactory? Does the paper use the correct technical terms? Are there typos or grammatical errors? Does the
paper need proofreading? Are all abbreviations explained? Are there too many abbreviations?
If not "Very good” or “Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
Literature references:
Are the references given relevant and sufficiently complete with respect to existing related work? Are the references up to date? Is
the reference list too long or too short? Is the ratio of own and foreign references adequate?
If not "Very good” or “Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
Figures and Tables:
Are the figures and tables given relevant? Are other figures/tables required? Are all figures/tables needed? Is the quality of the
figures and tables adequate?
Very good
Solid
Weak
Not acceptable
If not "Very good” or “Solid", please, explain the topics to be improved.
Decisive overall recommendation
Overall recommendation:
Accept as it is
Minor Revision
Major Revision
(second review needed)
Reject
Comments to the authors:
Please explain your evaluation in a detailed and clear manner. Point out strengths and weaknesses of the submitted contribution.
Please also provide suggestions for improvement and use an objective and constructive writing style.