my feedback on this paper
Here you can give feedback on the scientific paper made by a project team. You should evaluate in the first place how well this team succeeds to communicate their work to an audience that has some knowledge in this domain (imagine a typical reader as someone who has studied this course). The reader should have enough information to assess the reliability of the calculations, to reproduce the results, and to understand the implications of the results. Your anonymized feedback will be given to this project team (your identity will not be disclosed). Be honest, be straight, yet be polite and constructive.
Sign in to Google to save your progress. Learn more
My name is *
Your name will not be disclosed to the teams you evaluate.
What is the number of YOUR project team? *
Write '0' if you do not belong to a project team.
In this form I evaluate the paper of : *
list the team number and the name of the first author of the paper you will evaluate
Summarize in one to three sentences the main message of this paper. *
With the information given in this paper, how well would you be able to carry out exactly the same calculations? *
not at all
perfectly
what is possibly missing that prevents you from performing the described calculations?
Based on this paper, how reliable do you feel these calculations are? *
'reliable' means here: likely that the correct DFT answer has been found
totally unreliable
very reliable
what makes you possibly doubt about the reliability?
After having read a paper, you are usually left with a few questions. Imagine you are lucky to meet an author of the paper you just read at the coffee machine. What are the most pressing questions for clarification you would ask him/her? (at least one, at most three) *
You have worked on the same topic. Describe in a few sentences the main similarities and main differences between your work and the present paper.
If you were not part of another project team, then write 'not relevant' as an answer.
Judge this paper on the following aspects, always on a scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) : *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
the abstract summarizes the main message
the introduction clearly sketches the context of the research
the problem is well-described
where relevant, proper reference to previous work is made
the methodology is well-described
the methodology is justified in the text
the strategy is clearly described and reproducible
it is clearly described which new results (data) have been obtained
these data have been interpreted in an understandable and sound way
the relevance of this work has been pointed out
the paper conveys excitement and enthousiasm
Rate this paper with respect to your own paper : *
Which advice do you want to give to the authors of this paper ? *
Any other optional feedback you want to give about this paper :
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Does this form look suspicious? Report

Google Forms