Judgment Basis Definitions
Quality of data and validity of analytical techniques
- Is the paper technically sound?
- Does the paper evaluate the strengths and limitations of the work described?
- Are performance metrics clearly stated?
- Are results clearly described?
- Is relevant previous rearch discusd adequately?
- Are all assumptions referenced by previous proven works?
Long-term reference value
- Would this paper's content still be relevant and likely to be cited in future work?
- Are the results and interpretation of lasting scientific value?
-
Is the topic important to the field?
- Does the paper strengthen or extend the state of the art?
Technically new, innovative, or a constructive review
- Does the subject matter have an interested audience today?
- Are ideas/information and methods worthwhile, new, or creative?
- Is the author the source of new information?
- Are analytical, numerical, or experimental results and interpretation original?
- Is the impact of the results clearly stated?
Professional integrity
- Is the paper free from commercialism?
- Is the paper free from personalities and bias?
-
Is the paper clear and balanced?
- Is prior work of others adequately credited?
- If author claims first u of technology, is claim valid?
- Does the author avoid disparaging competitive methods or products?
- Are references to previous work prented constructively, in a fair and balanced manner?
Clear prentation
- Does the introductory ction explain motivation and orient the reader?
- Does the paper describe what was done, how it was done, and the key results?
- Does the paper stay focud on its subject?
- Are tables and figures clear, relevant and correct?
- Are the concepts clearly prented?
-
Is the paper logically organized?
- Are titles and keywords ud appropriately?
- Is the paper's length appropriate to its scope?
- Does the author demonstrate knowledge of basic composition skills, including word choice, ntence structure, paragraph development, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and citation of references?
Soundness of conclusions
- Are the claims of the paper firmly established?
- Are conclusions sound theoretically or experimentally?
- Are conclusions supported by the facts prented?
Numeric Scoring Guidelines
Reviewers are encouraged to apply the following guidelines when scoring each of the SAE Judgmen
t Bas, with the desired outcome of reducing variability in scores among reviewers for a given paper, while spreading out scores for papers of varying quality across the full 10-point scale.
Note that reviewer is expected to reasss and reassign scores once the author modifies and resubmits a revid manuscript. Therefore, an initial score of say, 6, does not necessarily preclude Journal publication since that score may improve upon re-review.
Score Guidelines
9 – 10 No significant weakness;
Suggested revisions are primarily optional;
Questions pod in Judgment Bas addresd in manner consistent with
ratings of “Approved” and “Recommended for Journal Publication”.
7 – 8 A few minor weakness;
Several revisions recommended or required;
Questions pod in Judgment Bas addresd well and sufficient for rating of
“Approved”, potentially subject to minor revision;
Revisions required to be consistent with Journal recommendation.
5 –
6 Many minor weakness and/or one major weakness;
Moderate-to-substantial revisions are required;
Questions pod in Judgment Bas addresd moderately but revisions are
required to be consistent with rating of “Approved”;
Quality insufficient for Journal publication.
3 –
4 Multiple major weakness;
Extensive revision required to make paper acceptable;
Not Journal quality.
1 –
2 Many major weakness;
Questions pod in Judgment Bas are inadequately addresd;
Required level of revision is likely too substantial to overcome;
Not Journal quality;
This score also applies if text lacks sufficient clarity to score Judgment Bas.
Conclusions = 7
Archival = 7
Integrity = 8
Quality = 7
Prentation = 5
Innovative = 6
General Viewable to Author 05/29/2016 10:07:39 上午
A competently written and mathematically detailed paper on modeling the benefits of a thermal management system for an eddy current retarder. The paper convincingly shows the benefits of a liquid cooling system over air convection. Some comments that may help improve the quality of the paper are listed below:
1. Throughout the paper –the word “break” and the word “brake” are ud inter changeable
throughout, but the words have very different meanings (“break” means to damage or
destroy). The draft appears to contain legitima te usage only for the word “brake”, “brakes”,
and “braking”, so a simple find and replace with the word processor may fix this issue quickly.
2. Page 1, 2nd column, the acronym “ECR” should be defined in its first u in the paper.
3. Page 1, “system Description” – there are three paragraphs below the title that are the SAE
template wording and have nothing to do with the paper – the should be removed.
4. Page 2, bottom of 1st column, should read “…..When the retarder is working….”
5. Page 2, top of 2nd column, words should not be capitalized within the ntence (heat,
condend, should be lower ca)
6. Page 2, top of 2nd column – add a period to the last ntence of the 1st paragraph in the 2nd
column (after “valve”).
7. Page 2, figure 4 – there should be no Chine characters in the plot – plea replace with
English and make the annotation larger/more clear
8. Throughout the paper, many equations are ud, but the terms are not always defined. All
variables in all equations should be defined – ideally, just below the equations as they are
ud, and again in an Appendix listing all of the variables and their names
9. Figures 11-15 – the fine size for the axes are is too small and hard to read. Plea make the
fonts larger.
10. Page 7 – figure 15 shows the stabilization temperature over a long time for both cooling
systems. It would be very informative to simulate a more realistic usage condition (such as a long hill descent or mixed uphill-downhill driving). This is optional, but it would enhance the
paper if it can be added.
Conclusions = 7
Archival = 7
Integrity = 8
Quality = 7
Prentation = 8
Innovative = 8
Comments :
General Viewable to Author 06/06/2016 12:33:51 下午
In general, this paper is well organized and could be accepted for some changes:
1. Modal validation: Can this simulation/calculation results compare to any existed/new test data?
Any validation for this simulation? Are parameters in table 1 coming from some practical
system?
2. Lack of literature review: Any one has done the similar simulation/calculation before? Any
difference or similarity?
3. Need a scheme and paragraph to demonstrate overall simulation model before results.
4. More conci equations, some equations can be removed with no effect on the context.
1. If the equations are borrowed from literature, there is no need to show derivations but
the reference.
2. It is better to have equation explained, rather than just listed.
5. Figures needs improve
1. Figure 1 -2 could be combined.
2. Figure 4 should be cleaned up and replaced by pictures with better quality.
6. Formatting:
1. Delete “1. System description …(which must be kept to 3.5 inches wide)”
2. A lot of words have first letter capitalized with no reason, like, ‘…and Heat
Exchange…’ ’…finally Condend water…’ ‘…and In order to’. Plea change them.
