1. SAE Technical Paper Reviewer Training

2. Training for Technical Session Reviews – Table of Contents 1.BenefitsBenefits 2.QualificationsQualifications 3.ExpectationsExpectations 4.Review Criteria & RatingsReview Criteria & Ratings 5.SAE JournalsSAE Journals 6.MyTechZone Screen ShotsMyTechZone Screen Shots

3. Why Review Technical Papers? Benefits  Advanced access to new technology and research  Stay abreast of latest research  Ensure quality papers  Contribute to the society  Opportunity to be seen as an expert in your field  Begin your involvement at SAE

4. Why Review Technical Papers? Benefits  Acquire leadership skills:  Time management  Decision-making skills  Providing constructive input  Reduced registration fee to attend the conference

5. Qualifications  Complete on-line SAE Reviewer Training http://volunteers.sae.org/reviewers.htm  Skill & expertise in the technology area of paper(s) being reviewed  Objectivity  Willingness to help others Why Review Technical Papers?

6. Time Commitment  Varies based on number of papers reviewed  On average, 3-5 hours are required to read and review a typical manuscript for the initial review Why Review Technical Papers?

7. Recognition Opportunities  Forest R. McFarland Award for outstanding reviewers http://www.sae.org/news/awards/list/mcfarland/  Recognition after completing 10 and 20 paper reviews  Over 60 SAE Awards recognizing outstanding achievement http://www.sae.org/news/awards/ http://www.sae.org/news/awards/

8.  Provide quality, constructive feedback  Review the technical content of the paper  Assess the clarity of the presentation, text and illustration  Make recommendation on manuscript acceptance or rejection  Supply numerical scores for specific review criteria  Make recommendation on manuscript suitability for journal review  Adhere to deadlines Expectations of Reviewers Reference only Author checklist http://volunteers.sae.org/authors/checklist.pdfhttp://volunteers.sae.org/authors/checklist.pdf

9. Manuscript Ratings  Approved – suitable to publish  Approved if Modified – needs minor or moderate modification before considering for publication  Disapproved – requires major modification before considering for publication Good quality constructive comments should be provided regardless of the rating selected.

10.  Long-term reference value (Archival)  Technically new, innovative or a constructive review  Professional integrity  Clear presentation  Quality of data and validity of analytical techniques  Soundness of conclusions Technical Review Criteria Judgment Basis Definitions http://volunteers.sae.org/volunteers/judgmentbases.htm

11.  Long-term reference value (archival) Would this paper's content still be relevant and likely to be cited in future work? Are the results and interpretation of lasting scientific value? Is the topic important to the field? Does the paper strengthen or extend the state of the art?  Technically new, innovative, or a constructive review Does the subject matter have an interested audience today? Are ideas/information and methods worthwhile, new, or creative? Is the author the source of new information? Are analytical, numerical, or experimental results and interpretation original? Is the impact of the results clearly stated? Technical Reviews Criteria

12.  Professional integrity Is the paper free from commercialism? Is the paper free from personalities and bias? Is the paper clear and balanced? Is prior work of others adequately credited? Does the author avoid disparaging competitive methods or products? Are references to previous work presented constructively, in a fair and balanced manner?commercialism  Clear presentation Does the introductory section explain motivation and orient the reader? Does the paper describe what was done, how it was done, and the key results? Does the paper stay focused on its subject? Are tables and figures clear, relevant and correct? Are the concepts clearly presented? Is the paper logically organized? Are titles and keywords used appropriately? Is the paper's length appropriate to its scope? Does the author demonstrate knowledge of basic composition skills, including word choice, sentence structure, paragraph development, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and citation of references? Technical Reviews Criteria

13.  Quality of data and validity of analytical techniques Is the paper technically sound? Does the paper evaluate the strengths and limitations of the work described? Are performance metrics clearly stated? Are results clearly described? Is relevant previous research discussed adequately? Are all assumptions referenced by previous proven works?  Soundness of conclusions Are the claims of the paper firmly established? Are conclusions sound theoretically or experimentally? Are conclusions supported by the facts presented? Technical Reviews Criteria

14.  Do not spend time on paper formatting  Do not check each grammatical error  If the paper has poor English but is technically sound, send it back with recommendation Expectations of Reviewers What Not to Do

15. Quality Reviews with Constructive Feedback ˭ High Quality Technical Papers!

16. SAE Journals highlight outstanding technical papers, especially those with long term reference value, for the scholarly research community.  Journal Editors select papers based on input from organizers and reviewers  Long term reference scores have more weight for journal selection  High scores of 8 and greater for any criteria indicate high quality  High scores with no Journal recommendation or low scores with recommendation, provide feedback SAE Journals http://store.sae.org/saejournals/

17. Reviewer Invitation Email Dear Melissa Jena The following manuscript 2011-01-2469 "Chassis Dynamometer Emissions Characterization of a Urea-SCR Transit Bus" has been submitted to SAE International and is being considered for publication. Recognizing your expertise, I would be very grateful if you could review the manuscript and evaluate whether it is suitable for publication by SAE International. High-quality reviews with detailed comments, requests, and suggestions are of fundamental importance to ensure quality of accepted papers. Your review therefore must include written information; completion of just the numerical evaluation questions is not acceptable. If you would like to review this paper and can do so by 12/15/2011, please login to www.sae.org/mytechzone, select “My Review Invitations” and accept the review invitation.www.sae.org/mytechzone If you do not wish to review this paper, please login to www.sae.org/mytechzone and decline the review invitation. In this case I would be very appreciative of alternative reviewer suggestions. These can be emailed to my attention.www.sae.org/mytechzone Help on how to use MyTechZone can be requested via your SAE staff representative below. General information for reviewers of SAE papers can be found at http://volunteers.sae.org/http://volunteers.sae.org/ Bridget Struble ( 724 )772 8588 bstruble@sae.org Sincerely, Melissa Jena ( 724 )772 4008 mjena@sae.org P.S. To log in, use your SAE userID: mjena@sae.or gmjena@sae.or g SAE Login User ID

18. MyTechZone Reviewer Screens

19. My Review Invitations

23. Judgment Basis Definitionshttp://volunteers.sae.org/volunteers/judgmentbases.htm

24. Click on “My Reviewer Expertise” to update your reviewer profile at any time.

25. Questions? Contact SAE Customer Service CustomerService@sae.org 1-877-606-7323 724-776-4970