Please follow the guidelines for the review of the work so that the points awarded are as uniform as possible between individuals and thus the quality of the contribution can be assessed more comparably.
- Introduction to the problem area
- State of the art research
- Material und Methoden/Materials and Methods
- Description of the methods
- Hypotheses for experiments
- Description of the experiments
- Objective results
- Interpretation and evaluation of the results
- Significant progress through the contribution
- maximum 3 own preparatory works
- maximum 10 relevant papers
1- 3 (insufficient)
4- 6 (sufficient)
7- 9 (satisfactory)
- Quality of the representation or presentation
- Is the presentation clear and concise?
- Is the article written in an understandable way?
- Are the title of the article and the chapter headings appropriately chosen?
- Has the article been carefully prepared (what is the number of typing errors, are there illustrative graphics and figures etc.)?
- Is there a clear working hypothesis?
- Is the selection of methods systematic?
- Do the methods fit the working hypothesis?
- Are experiments being carried out?
- Are the experiments reproducible?
- Are the data used adequate?
- Is a sufficient amount of data used?
- Progress by the contribution
- Does the contribution results new knowledge?
- Does the contribution results new methods?
- Does the contribution results new applications?
- Is the knowledge gain explicitly formulated?
- Overall impression
- Does the article contain interesting new elements (new methods, interesting results, etc.)?
- Should the contribution be presented at BVM?
Please comment your reviews as text for the authors. In case of acceptance, your comments are important for the improved presentation in the Proceedings Long Version. If you recommend a rejection, your comments are also essential to make the deficiencies of the contribution transparent to the author. Comments and evaluation points will be sent to the authors anonymously.