Appendix 5 - reviewer’s guide
I am pleased to say that I know # as a research worker of unusual ability and irreproachable character. He is diligent, loyal and trust-worthily in every way. I feel no reservation in recommending him for the scholarship he applied for.
The paper is well written, but its organisation and clarity should be still improved, following the list of suggestions given below.
....should be accompanied by a few more words.
The authors should clearly indicate, how...
Has anybody attacked the problem before ?
One sentence could be added on ...
The paper is poorly written and is marred by errors, inconsistent notation and missing definitions.
... does not have adequate referencing to previous papers
I found such a result too weak to stand on its own.
The claim that the .. is false.
The author should reference papers by ...
The introduction also lacks a brief summary.
The definitions in ... are vague.
There are a number of minor mistakes.
The author should spend more time to avoid having a paper with such a large number of errors.
I recommend that the paper be accepted after addressing the above points.
I have several reservations about this paper.
The author should tighten up the time complexity analysis.
You have to modify the text to address this concern.
The proof of this could be made more attractive if the authors did not make such heavy weather of their definitions.
The paper is a good piece of work on a subject that attracts considerable attantion.
The bound is only a marginal improvemenover a bound of 2n-1 published in.
The paper is generally well presented, with a good introduction to the literature, though the English would need some touching up before it could be printed.
After reflection I therefore feel this is a rather borderline paper. I cannot strongly recommended its publication but neither would it protest if it were to be published.
...the idiomatic use of English (?)
Accepted after minor revisions
Summing up, I must say to my regret that the paper is not free of serious omissions and therefore its publication would be a bad idea.
The paper contains some easy and some more involved results. We would rank it average both in terms of quality of results and also of presentation.
The results of this paper can be considered as a base for a future publication. In the present form the paper does not have enough substance to be published in the journal Disc. App. Math. The paper should be rejected.
A few minor typographical errors are listed below.
The results obtained are not particularly surprising and will be of limited interest.
The paper does not meet the standards of the journal.
Accordingly, I recommend that the paper be rejected.
The results are corned but only moderately interesting.
