To the Reviewer: Welcome, and thank you for agreeing to review an article submitted to JEA. Thoughful and timely manuscript review is one of the most important services you can perform for your research community. This page is intended to clarify the standards of JEA and your responsibilites as a reviewer.
If you are reviewing a paper in the Manuscript Central system, please use the review form provided.
If you are reviewing a paper not in Manuscript Central, you can use the review form available at jea.acm.org/review.txt .
JEA is part of ACM's flagship publications; thus the standard of quality is high. Articles are judged on:
Most submissions to JEA will include code and test data. Authors are expected to provide complete code packages (preferably written in C or C++) that can be installed on a standard Unix platform by a moderately knowledgeable reader with a few instructions (typically by executing make or some similar building tool). Test data (whether problem instances or output from various programs) should be well documented, including types of instances (if applicable), relevance to testing, significance of results, etc.; much of this documentation may of course appear in the paper itself.
Referees are asked to evaluate the software only to the point of verifying that:
In particular, referees are not expected to certify that the software is correct or that all the experimental results reported in the manuscript are valid.
JEA expects all data relevant to the paper to be included in the paper: reviewers are not expected to examine data files or to compare them to results in the paper.
Reviewers are invited to comment if data and other files lack sufficient documentation to be understood or interpreted, or if features do not work as claimed.
For more information on specific topics, see the ACM publications policies.