As a reviewer, you are expected to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a paper. When stating strengths, be specific about what you liked about the paper. When stating weaknesses, describe your concerns and offer suggestions for improvement. For example, the work may present some interesting concepts but neglect to mention some relevant works. Please remain professional throughout the reviewing process by providing constructive criticism.

The following are guidelines to assist in the reviewing process:

1. Overall Rating - Indicate your preference for accepting the paper as a GRAND Research Note

2. Expertise - Rate your expertise in the research area of the paper that you are reviewing

3. Importance of Contribution and Research Problem - Summarize the contribution of the paper and the research problem that the authors are addressing, and then evaluate the importance of this contribution. Note that you must provide justification for your score.

4. Originality and Innovation - Provide detailed explanation of the originality and innovation of the work that is being described in the Research Note. Please cite other works if you feel that novelty/originality is lacking.

5. Clarity, writing quality and formatting - Comment on the clarity of expression and formatting. Please provide specific examples and offer suggestions for improvement.

6. General Comments - Justify the Overall Rating. That is, explain in detail why you support acceptance or rejection of this Research Note. You should provide both positive and negative comments. Remember to be respectful to the authors.

7. Comments to the Committee - These will be hidden from the authors. If you have concerns regarding the paper that you feel cannot be shared with the authors, please include them here. 

For more information on Research Notes, please visit:
Research Notes (RNotes Call for Participation)
Submission Writing Guidelines
Review Process