About Contact Help us

HCI, User Experience, Information Architecture, Usability, and more

“Thank you so much to everyone involved”

---Rosemary J. Bennett

Last 3 Donors

1. Stephen J. Kidd

2. Maria Hull

3. Rosemary J. Bennett

...more generous donors

Support us

Funding progress for 2010:

Encyclopedia

Information for Reviewers

How to cite

Information for Reviewers

An entry to the Interaction-Design.org Encyclopedia should be evaluated according to the editorial policy plus normal scientific criteria.

Editorial policy

The Interaction-Design.org Encyclopedia is about making research accessible and about presenting a complex and central term in a way that allows the reader to:

understand the term
understand how and by whom it has been researched and which research has contributed to the development of the term
its relevance to the research community and to practitioners
learn how to learn more about the term

Background on the editorial policy

It is essential for reviewers to understand the 'genre' and goals of the encyclopedia. Therefore, you should read how contributors are instructed to write their entries. This link opens in a new window

Please fill out

You have reviewed the following Encyclopedia Entry:

Title:

Normal scientific criteria

Please evaluate the Encyclopedia entry according to listed criteria.

Evaluation	Question
	Mastery of language
	Style and presentation
	Coherence of arguments
	Amount of references and discussion of previous work
	Quality of illustrations
	Readability

Criteria specific to this encyclopedia

Evaluation	Question
	How well does the describe the history of the term? Is it comprehensive, yet short and concise?
	How well does the entry match the standard of e.g. Jack Carroll's entry on HCI http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/human_computer_interaction_hci.html
	How well does the entry include the 'academic landscape' of the term: Does it name all relevant conference series, researchers, and journals? Does it explain the term's relation to related topics/terms?
	How good are the suggestions for further reading and pointers on how to learn more?
	How well does it strike a balance between writing in a impartial tone but still letting the voice and standpoint of the author be heard? I.e. an entry should not be a mere listing of facts (a 'wikipedia' approach), nor a regular research article.

Your constructive comments

In the box below, please provide constructive comments/suggestions as to how the author may make his/her entry even better! For example:

How could the entry become easier to understand?
Do you have suggestions for better concrete examples?
How could the text get a better ‘flow'?
Do you have better suggestions for instructing readers on where and how to learn more?
Which sentences should be rephrased
Is it lengthy enough?
Do you know of any better references that should be mentioned (literature on how and by whom the term has been researched)?
How could the entry become an even more important addition to the encyclopedia?

Will be sent anonymously to the author

Your Concluding Recommendation

Place indicate your recommendation for acceptance:

		Accept (with optional revision) The Encyclopedia entry can be accepted as it is; the author is expected to make minor revisions according to reviewer and editor viewpoints. Comments on your recommendation: Will be sent anonymously to the author

		Develop – minor revisions The Encyclopedia entry cannot be accepted as it is, but is a clear candidate for acceptance. Only minor revisions are needed. Comments on your recommendation: Will be sent anonymously to the author

		Develop – major revisions The Encyclopedia entry cannot be accepted as it is, but it is worthwhile starting an editorial process to improve the entry. If you have marked the entry as worthwhile developing (requiring major revisions), the editors will initiate an improvement process involving the author, a chief editor, and a member from the editorial board. Please indicate the points where you see a need for improvement. Your comments will be read by the people responsible for the development process. In which areas does the entry need development? Will be sent anonymously to the author If the reviewed entry needs a major revision, can you help improve it?

		Reject The Encyclopedia entry cannot be accepted as it is, and it is not worthwhile starting an editorial process. Please indicate your main reasons for rejection. Try to be constructive. What are the problems with the entry? What may be done to overcome the problems? Will be sent anonymously to the author

Your details

Your name (the reviewer):

The review is blinded, your identity is only known to the reviewing board

Your email:

The review is blinded, your identity is only known to the reviewing board

Changes to this page

31 Mar 2006: Thanks to sysiac.org, from where this editorial policy has been inspired and adapted

Random Tip

Would you like a daily quote related to interaction design?

Last 3 Donors

Support us

Information for Reviewers

Editorial policy

Background on the editorial policy

Please fill out

Normal scientific criteria

Criteria specific to this encyclopedia

Your constructive comments

Your Concluding Recommendation

Accept (with optional revision)

Develop – minor revisions

Develop – major revisions

Reject

Your details

Changes to this page

Random Tip

Page Copyright Notice

Page information