As a reviewer, your overall goal is to help the author produce a better paper, and the editors reach an informed decision. Each paper is reviewed independently by two reviewers. Each reviewer submits his/her comments and suggests a decision (accept, modify, reject), but the final decision remains with the ST Journal of Research editors. GUIDELINES - Constructive and substantiated comments are preferable to negative statements. Identify strengths as well as weaknesses, be author-friendly.
- Read the Authors' Guidelines, so as to know what is expected from them. They contain specific instructions regarding length and format, make sure they have been followed.
- The readership of the ST Journal is the technical community at large. Therefore, the paper should be accessible to readers with a significant but varied technical background. In essence, a paper is deemed worthy of publication by the ST Journal if it diffuses technical knowledge among its readers. Papers are either of a tutorial nature (describing a technical field to non specialists) or of an R&D nature (describing specific research results). Papers which are little more than datasheets, user manual or roadmaps, are not appropriate. This does not mean that papers might not include a roadmap or a chip-set description, actually they can, as long as they also include valuable technical information.
- Check the didactical and technical integrity of the paper, specifically,
- The abstract is an accurate and concise representation of the purpose(s), method(s), result(s) and conclusions presented in the paper.
- The motivation and purpose of the paper are clearly developed.
- Antecedent work is appropriately reviewed and integrated.
- The originality and significance of the work is clearly stated.
- Methods employed are clearly and completely described. Claims are backed by experimental results.
- Data and results are completely and objectively presented, i.e., sufficient for interpretation by the reader.
- Tables and/or figures and their captions are clear and relevant.
- Significant results are appropriately emphasized.
- Limitations of the results are shown.
- Discussion of the results clearly relates to the problem, as stated earlier in the paper.
- Conclusions drawn are justified by discussion of presented results.
- Directions for future study of the problem(s), if appropriate, are discussed.
- Do not worry about spelling, grammar or punctuation. This is taken care of in a separate step of the editing process.
- Do not identify yourself. The reviewing process is anonymous
| 
