1 / 11

IEEE P1603 reviewer’s guideline

IEEE P1603 reviewer’s guideline. Wolfgang Roethig, WG chair. Please review the IEEE P1603 document for the following criteria. Clarity Contents Completeness Consistency Practicality Organization Style. Clarity. Is the contents understandable?

yoshe
Download Presentation

IEEE P1603 reviewer’s guideline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE P1603 reviewer’s guideline Wolfgang Roethig, WG chair

  2. Please review the IEEE P1603 document for the following criteria • Clarity • Contents • Completeness • Consistency • Practicality • Organization • Style

  3. Clarity • Is the contents understandable? • Does the section/subsection describe what the title says? • If not, should the title be changed or the section/subsection be rewritten? • Feel free to ask questions for clarification • Don’t assume that someone else (with more expertise on the subject?) will understand if you don’t

  4. Contents • Does the proposed contents fulfill a purpose? • Is the proposed contents acceptable? • If not, please state the reasons and draft alternative proposal – be brief

  5. Completeness • Is a section complete in itself? • Are appropriate references given to other sections/subsections or to external documents? • If information is missing, is it found in other sections/subsections? – please identify • Feel free to draft a proposal that fills the blanks

  6. Consistency • Are there any contradictions within a section/subsection? • Are there any contradictions between sections/subsections? • Propose resolutions for apparent contradictions

  7. Practicality • Is the proposed contents practical for new implementations? • Is the proposed contents compatible with existing implementations? • Are changes with respect to previous versions justified? • Give practical examples, if there are issues

  8. Organization • Are the topics presented in an appropriate order? • Do the topics of a section/subsection belong together? • Are topics that belong together found in the same section/subsection? • Feel free to propose an alternative organization

  9. Style • Simplicity: any suggestions to shorten a 300 page document are welcome • Tables and figures are as important as text • Check for correct and concise terminology • No need to report typos and grammar in detail: this is the responsibility of the technical editor

  10. How to give feedback • Email to alf@eda.org is best • Break it into several emails if subject is long • Please refer to version, page and line numbers • Direct editing of source text by reviewer should be exception, not rule

  11. Thanks for your time and effort to review the IEEE P1603 document

More Related