Guide for Reviewers

This guide is intended to support reviewers in the SimBuild paper review process.

For additional context, we recommend also reviewing the Guide for Authors to understand how authors are encouraged to structure and present their work.

What is the Purpose of Scientific Review?

Scientific reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of SimBuild conference content. Whether you are a seasoned reviewer or participating for the first time, it’s important to understand how your contribution supports both the authors and the conference.

Reviewers provide two essential services:

  1. Guiding the Scientific Committee:
    Reviews inform the committee about the relevance, significance, and novelty of each submission. This process helps ensure that the papers included in conference proceedings and online publications are trustworthy, impactful, and aligned with the goals of the scientific community.
  2. Supporting Authors:
    Constructive feedback helps authors improve the clarity, structure, and impact of their work. Even if a paper is not accepted, thoughtful reviews provide valuable insights that can strengthen future submissions.

Constructive Feedback

Remember that the authors receiving your review are people, too. Honest criticism is important, but it can always be delivered respectfully and constructively.

When giving feedback, be sure to highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. Acknowledging what works well not only encourages authors but also gives the review committee a clearer sense of the paper’s overall merit and potential for acceptance.

SMART Feedback

When providing feedback, consider using the SMART framework to ensure your comments are clear, helpful, and actionable:

  • Specific – What exactly should the authors improve?
    Instead of saying “The background is too vague,” try: “Please expand on the XYZ topic to provide more context.”

  • Measurable – Provide some indication of what kind of change is expected, such as expanding a section, adding a reference, or clarifying a method.

  • Achievable – Make sure your suggestions are realistic within the scope of the paper and the revision timeline.

  • Relevant – Keep feedback focused on what aligns with the goals of the paper and the conference.

  • Time-Bound – Consider the revision timeline. If major changes are needed that likely can’t be completed on time, make sure that’s reflected in your recommendation (accept, revision, or reject).

Match Your Review to the Paper Type

The building simulation community includes individuals with diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise. As a reviewer, it’s important to tailor your evaluation criteria based on the type of paper you’re reviewing.

For an overview of the different paper types and their intended focus, please refer to the Guide for Authors.

Reviewer Checklist: Guiding Questions to Consider

Your review should be thorough and address all key aspects of the paper, including clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field. To support your evaluation, you may refer to the reviewer questions outlined in the BPACS training materials, which provide helpful prompts for assessing submissions.

  1. Does the title accurately reflect the subject of the paper?
  2. Does the abstract provide a clear and accessible summary?
  3. Do the keywords accurately represent the paper’s content?
  4. Is the paper an appropriate length? Is it engaging, or does it feel repetitive or boring?
  5. Are the key messages concise, accurate, and clearly communicated?
  6. Is it clear what the authors did and why they did it?
  7. Does the literature review effectively explain the state of the art prior to this work?
  8. Is the hypothesis or research question clearly defined and logical?
  9. Does the methodology make sense as a way to test the hypothesis?
  10. Are the modeling assumptions and standards used appropriate for the study?
  11. Do the results make sense? Are there signs of calculation or setup errors? Are unexpected results explained reasonably?
  12. Do the figures and tables support the text? Are they easy to interpret and consistent with the claims made?
  13. If there is statistical analysis, is it appropriate and well-applied for the research question?
  14. Are the conclusions supported by data presented in the paper?
  15. Are the references credible, peer-reviewed, and relevant to the topic?

Support the Reviewer Committee

As part of your review, please indicate your confidence in evaluating the manuscript. You can use the “Familiarity with the topic” field to share how comfortable you feel assessing the subject matter.

If you have concerns about your ability to accurately review the paper, or if you’d like to provide comments that should not be shared with the authors, use the “Internal comments” field to communicate this directly to the review committee.

Further Guidance

For additional tips on writing and reviewing papers, explore our recorded webinar series Your Guide to SimBuild Success. The series includes a dedicated session on how to review a building simulation paper, along with guidance on abstracts, paper structure, and data visualization.