Guidelines for Reviewers

General Guidelines

Submissions to JoCG should be judged based on the following criteria (described in detail below): paper type, relevance, foundational/conceptual contribution, technical contribution, relation to open problems, and community interest. To be accepted into JoCG, a paper should be rated highly in several of the above measures.

For comparison purposes, the quality of research in a JoCG article should be similar to what one would expect to find in a typical SoCG (Symposium on Computational Geometry) or SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper.  This is not to say that only papers acceptable to SoCG or SODA will be accepted by JoCG. Some types of papers (e.g., surveys, expository papers, and long technical contributions) that are not be suitable for a conference could still find a home in JoCG.

In addition, articles to appear in JoCG should meet the usual requirements of high-quality research articles. Articles should be well-written. Articles should include a thorough and complete discussion of related previous work. Technical details should be explained in full detail and as clearly as possible.

Failing to meet any of the above requirements is grounds for rejection or a request for resubmission. JoCG is a non-commercial enterprise and has no quotas on the numbers of papers that are accepted in any given time frame.

For all but very long and/or technical contributions, we ask that reviewers do their best to complete their reviews within 8 weeks of the review request.

Format of the Comments for Authors

Your comments for authors should have two parts, a series of numerical grades and a long-form part.  The purpose of the numerical grades is to provide authors with an objective evaluation of their paper and your confidence in this evaluation.

Numerical Grades

Confidence: Indicate your confidence in your review as a number in [0,3] using one of the following confidence ratings:

3: Expert. Consider me an "expert" on this paper. I understand it in detail. I know the field, and I am perfectly sure about my judgement; I have checked and understood all proofs.

2: High. I am fairly familiar with the area of this paper, and have read the paper closely enough to be reasonably confident of my judgment.

1: Medium. I have read the paper carefully and understood the main ideas, but I'm not very confident of my judgment on it.

0: Low. I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider. I have some idea of what this paper is about, but I'm not all that confident of my judgment on it. (to be avoided)

Please also give numerical scores in the range [-2,3] for each of the following criteria.  Your scores should be supported by your comments. These scores will be made available to the authors. An interpretation of these scores is included below.

Technical Strength: This summarizes the technical contributions, as well as any issues about correctness.

Originality: Does the paper introduce a novel viewpoint or some new technique of general interest, or is it only an application of standard tools?

Presentation: How clearly is the paper written?

Appropriateness: How interesting is the paper to the community? Is it within the scope of JoCG?

Overall Score: Give an overall score that indicates the suitability of this paper for JoCG.

Grade interpretations

3: An enthusiastic accept. An excellent paper - advances the field in an important way - well written and makes it easy to understand what the significance of the result is. I would argue strongly for this paper.

2: A solid contribution. I feel I learned something worthwhile from this paper and that other readers will feel the same.

1: A reasonable contribution. This is a reasonable and relevant contribution and is clearly publishable in a medium-quality journal, but probably below the standards of JoCG.

0: Ambivalent. Probably publishable as a journal paper in a medium-quality journal, but a bit too specialized or too incremental for JoCG.

-1: A competent paper.  This is a competent paper but not of sufficient interest/depth for JoCG. The paper is too preliminary, or badly-written, or makes a minor improvement on an esoteric topic.

-2: A poor paper, unsuitable for any journal.

Long-Form Review

The long-form part consists of comments for the authors in support of the numerical grades.  This section is free-form, but should address the following items (reviewers are welcome to cut and paste from the descriptions below).

Paper type

Is the paper a

  • first step (opens a new area)?

  • last step (closes an important area)?

  • giant step (makes essential progress)?

  • none of the above?

Is the paper

  • a theoretical contribution?

  • an experience paper/experimental paper?

  • an applied paper that shows an interesting application of geometric algorithms and concepts to other fields?

  • or a combination of some of the above?

Relevance

In what respect is the paper relevant to the scope of JoCG? Is it directly relevant for the design, use, analysis, or implementation of algorithms for geometric problems? May it have indirect implications for the complexity of geometric problems?

Foundational/conceptual contribution

Does the paper introduce a new model, new notion, new definition, new approach, novel implementation, or a novel application? Note the significance and reasons for this novelty or note the absence of such a novelty.

Technical contribution

Does the paper make

  • an introduction of a new technique?

  • a novel use of known technique?

  • a talented use of known technique?

  • a traditional use of known technique?

  • a trivial use of technical knowledge?

Relation to open problems

Does the paper solve completely/partially an open question? How important is this question? Is the question central/important/interesting/legitimate/stupid?. How much effort has been invested in solving it and by whom?

Community interest

Is the paper potentially interesting to the whole community, to a major field (e.g., meshing), to everyone in a restricted area (e.g., pseudotriangulations), or interesting only to the authors?