MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research's Reviewer's Form for paper #0

Thank you for agreeing to review this paper, entitled Generic Paper Title , by AB Firstauthor, BC Secondauthor.

If you have reviewed papers for the MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research before, you may want to skip the orientation material, and go on with the review.

Reviewing a paper for MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research will be quite similar to the process to which you are already accustomed, but more streamlined in so far as you can carry out your duties on line. Your identity will only be known by the editor in charge of that particular manuscript.

You have some new possibilities of which you may avail yourself. For example, in some cases, you may wish to have comments published as part of the accepted manuscript. These can serve as initial comments of what we hope will be a lively on-line debate concerning every paper published in MIJ-NSR. Also, the point ratings you assign may be be tabulated to help readers decide which MIJ-NSR papers to read.

Here is the way that the review process in MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research proceeds:

A paper is made available, in preprint form, immediately upon completion of the submission process. The author has a choice of making the manuscript public, or keeping it private. In the latter case, a 'secret URL' is assigned. The editors are alerted of the submission and assign reviewers.
Upon your selection as reviewer, you receive the URL of the manuscript, the reviewform and a password which you must submit with the review form to validate your identity.
Fill out the reviewer's form. The criteria for acceptance in MIJ-NSR are similar to those for traditional journals. We seek papers describing original work of high scientific quality. The writing style must adhere to generally accepted standards. However, the format of papers will be quite different to capitalize on the electronic medium. For example, the paper should be divided into logical sections to permit the reader to jump from a table of contents directly to a section of interest. The readability rating which you assign is used by the Journal to decide whether to require redaction.
Your review of the paper is then forwarded to the editor in charge and then to author of record. The author has 30 days to respond to the reviewers comments. Upon receiving the author's response, the editor then determines whether the paper is accepted as is and published, sent back to the reviewers, or rejected and removed from the server. All rejections are final.

Formatting Problems

Papers sent to review will inevitably have problems related to the way the journal computer has processed the manuscript file. Problems may arise because the author has incorrectly formatted the manuscript, or because the computer is not too smart. The Journalmaster may have added comments to the review message indicating problems that have been noted. You can help by noting any other problems you find while reading the manuscript.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

Address your suggestions to the author, not to an editor.
Address your general comments to the reader.
Stick to specifics; when you make a suggestion, it should be something the author can remedy.
Comments should be constructive and polite.
If you feel that a paper violates the Journal's rules against copyright infringement or plagiarism, you should contact the referring editor immediately.
Number your suggestions in the form: 1. 2. 2a. 3. etc.
If you're familiar with HTML formatting, you may use any HTML tags to format your comments.

The Review Form (Part 1 of 3)

OK, now you're ready to start entering your review. When you submit the first form, a page with your review will be returned to you. You must click the "submit" button on this second page for your review to be entered into the journal.

First, here's a list of things to check. Check each box if the answer to the question is "YES".

Does the subject matter of the paper belong in MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research? Yes No

Is the paper clear and well organized? Yes No

Is the title appropriate? Yes No

Does the paper present original work? Yes No

Has all the essential information been included? Yes No

Have section headings been included? Yes No

Will the figures be legible in both color and black and white? Yes No

Has color been used in the figures where appropriate? Yes No

Has numerical data been included where appropriate? Yes No

Have the appropriate references been cited? Yes No

Now, enter your specific comments and suggestions for the author in the box below. Try to make them as specific and as constructive as possible. If you have left any of the above checkboxes unchecked, you'll want to elaborate here. It helps if you number your suggestions. You may want to type your comments in a text processor; then cut and paste into this box. That way you can save the review for your records.

Should these specific comments be published on the review and comment page of the paper?
Check here if yes:

Now, use these radio buttons to enter numerical ratings. Ratings of 0 are equivalent to no rating (they will not be published.)

General Interest : The audience that would find this paper worth reading is

5, scientists and engineers in diverse fields. (The sort of paper that might even be noticed by the popular press.)

4, everyone interested in nitride semiconductor research, and a number of readers from other fields.

3, many of the readers of this journal.

2, a minority of the readers of this journal (a paper mostly for the specialists).

1, only a few specialists.

0, the author (perhaps this paper is ahead of its time).

no rating.

Scientific Quality : This paper is

5, Excellent. There is absolutely no doubt that the paper is correct.

4, Good. The authors seem to know what they're doing.

3, Satisfactory. Although there remain a few questionable points, there is nothing terribly wrong with this paper.

2, Unsatisfactory. Although there may be some value to this work, serious flaws remain in the paper, as noted in my comments.

1, Poor. This work is fundamentally flawed.

0, This paper is not a scientific work.

no rating.

If you selected 1, 2, or 3, you should have suggestions for improvement above. A rating of 3 or above indicates a paper that could be accepted and archived.

Readability : I found this paper to be

5, a pleasure to read.

4, clear.

3, readable.

2, difficult to read.

1, riddled with gramatical errors, to the point of being unreadable.

no rating.

Authors receiving ratings of 1 or 2 will be required to improve their ratings or pay a copyediting (redaction) fee.

Now, enter your general comments, addressed to potential readers of this article. This should be a few sentences to help the reader decide if the paper is of interest to him or her. These comments will be used in the journal newsletter, on the review and comment page of the article, and in other similar situations.

We need your name and e-mail address so that we can contact you in case the author resubmits the manuscript.

Your name?

Your e-mail address?

Now, to verify that you are the reviewer, please enter your reviewer code here

Thank you for serving the scientific community as a reviewer for the MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research! When you submit the review, you be asked to review your comments, and confirm them. When the review is confirmed, it will be e-mailed to the author and to the reviewing Editors. If the manuscript is revised, you may be contacted by e-mail and the review process will repeat.