Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems (MCSS)

Contents of this page

• MCSS Review Guidelines
• MCSS Review Check List

• Review request. Please, are you willing to review a paper for the journal Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems (MCSS)? The Associate Editor and the Editors are very grateful to you if you agree to review the paper.
• Aim and scope. The journal MCSS aims at publishing papers in the areas of control, signals, and systems that present novel and substantial results, that are technically correct, that offer an excellent exposition, and, moreover, that are of exceptional quality in these regards.
• Check. On receipt of the paper check whether the paper is in your research area of interest. In addition, check whether you have the time to complete the review in the period set by the Associate Editor.
• Review. Please read the paper and form an opinion on the novelty, the substance, the technical correctness, and the exposition of the paper.
• Recommendation. Please formulate a recommendation to the Associate Editor on the MCSS Review Form by selecting one of the indicated options. Add confidential remarks to the Associate Editor if you feel this is helpful. You may also complete the checklist that is provided below.
• Comments to authors. Comments intended for the author(s) should be stated in a separate part of the message.
• Confidentiality. The Editors have taken safety measures such that your identity as reviewer will not be made known to the authors of the paper.
• Due date. Return the review on or before the date specified by the Associate Editor. The authors of papers, the AE's, and the Editors want to minimize delays in the review process. In the unfortunate case that you cannot complete the review in time, please inform the AE. This information will be used in case the correspondent author inquires with the Editors.
• The paper. You may keep the copy of the paper but you should treat it as confidential information.

Jan H. van Schuppen (Co-Editor of MCSS).
Amsterdam, December 16, 1996.

Significance and substance
• Excellent, both mathematically and from applications point of view.
• Mathematically straightforward but of great `applied' interest.
• Mathematically interesting but of little `applied' interest.
• Mathematically trivial and of little `applied' interest.
• I am not enough of an expert in this area to evaluate significance.
• Very good `survey' paper, but little new.
Technical correctness
• Found no errors besides minor typos.
• Found some small, fixable errors (as indicated in review).
• Have serious questions that must be addressed before acceptance.
• Found fatal mistake. Paper should be rejected.
• Paper is so badly written that correctness cannot be assessed.
Exposition
• Excellent presentation.
• Requires work on English style.
• Requires work on mathematical presentation.
• Better motivation needed in introduction.
• More discussion of applications essential.
• Many important references missing. (Please suggest.)
Conciseness:
• Should be condensed considerably. (Please suggest ways.)
• Just the right level of detail.
• Needs more detail. (Please suggest where.)
Overall evaluation:
• Among best 10% of the papers I've ever refereed.
• Quite good paper, should be published in a top journal.
• Good but mostly routine.
• Absolutely not publishable in MCSS. (Please provide good arguments.)
• Technical-note type of paper.
• Better suited for some other journal. (Give reasons and suggestions.)

Last information update January 16, 1999.

MCSS Journal