Journal of Graphics Tools Review Form

Paper Number:
Paper Title:
Author(s):

>1. Is it clear what the paper is offering?
>   (E.g., what problem is being solved)
>
>   * From reading the title and abstract, can the reader know what to expect
>     the "take-aways" to be?
>   * And does it then deliver these?
>   * What type of paper is it?
>          Trick/Hack
>          Original Technique/Algorithm
>          Novel Research Idea
>          Experience/Advice
>          Survey
>          Tutorial
>          Production Notes
>   * Please summarize what the paper offers.



>2. Is it a new idea or is it a new presentation of existing ideas?
>   (The paper should be explicit about this.)
>
>   * If it's a new idea, has it been sufficiently proven or "battle-tested"?
>     (An idea may be worthy as research but not mature enough to be
>     considered a tool.)
>   * If it's a presentation of existing ideas, is this presentation better
>     than existing texts or literature? "Better" can mean:
>          Clearer than existing literature.
>          Fills in gaps in existing literature.
>          The existing ideas are put together in a new and useful way.
>          The existing ideas are applied here to computer graphics.
>          The presentation is better-suited to the jgt audience.
>          Existing literature is too obscure for the jgt audience.



>3. Is the paper written simply and clearly? 
>   (See the jgt style guide <http://www.acm.org/jgt/guide.html> notes on presenting a tool.)
>
>   * Is it well organized?
>   * Is the language clear and readable?
>   * Are there appropriate figures? (Not too few or too many?)
>   * Are the figures clear?
>   * Is the bibliography adequate?  (Not too little or too much?)
>   * Is there appropriate background and introduction? (Not too little or
>     too much?)
>   * Is the paper "short and sweet"? (Will readers be happy to read all the way
>     through it?)



>4. Does the paper present a useful tool?
>   (Will jgt readers want to try out the idea or technique in the paper?)
>
>   * How relevant and important is the topic?
>   * Does the paper:
>          Provide general education?
>          Suggest a new way to accomplish a task?
>          Save the reader from going down false trails?
>          Save the reader from working out details?
>   * How unobvious is the idea or technique? (If it's the first thing a
>     competent graduate student would try, it's too obvious. If it's the
>     fourth, it could be worth publishing.)



>5. Is the paper practicable?
>   (If jgt readers try out the idea or technique in the paper, will they be glad they did?)
>
>   * Is it complete and sufficiently detailed?
>   * Is it sufficiently focused? (Does it avoid straying into irrelevancies
>     that the reader must filter out?)
>   * Does it address all singularities, degeneracies, boundary conditions,
>     and special cases?
>   * Does it honestly discuss drawbacks and limitations?
>   * Overall, could a reader immediately and easily make use of the content?
>     "Make use" can include:
>          Make use of source code.
>          Make use of pseudocode.
>          Make use of ideas.
>          Make use of knowledge.



>6. Recommendation:
>
>     Accept as is.
>     Accept with minor changes.
>     Resubmit after major changes.
>     Reject.
>     Submit elsewhere.
>
>Please explain.



>7. Please add any additional comments.