The optional Peer-Review
Why optional?
Many public institutions that support research projects require a regular publication of their results. To ensure that these results are in fact of scientific value, the assessment by a third party is often required. This process is known as peer-review and due to its demanding logistics is increasingly rare. The Institute for Fluid Power Drives and Controls (IFAS) and organisers of the 9th IFK in Aachen still want scientists to have the opportunity to have their work reviewed accordingly, so as to demonstrate its scientific value.
By tradition the IFK unites scientists with industry in an international forum to exchange their knowledge. Therefore, a peer-review only makes sense for some of the authors. At this juncture the IFAS would like to point out that the peer-review is intended in no way to classify the papers, but only to support the need for review.
How do I submit my paper for peer-review?
When you submit your abstract at the following Link, you shall be asked to select a preferred presentation format. There you have the option to choose between: Oral (presentation), Symposium (presentation preferred in symposium) and Poster (no presentation, just exhibition of a poster). Furthermore, for both presentation formats an extra option is available: reviewed. By selecting this option you request a peer-review.
What happens if the paper fails the review?
If your paper does not pass the review or if you miss a deadline, it will be treated as a conventional article and published accordingly. No evidence relating to an incomplete review will be printed.
Guidelines for the review process:
The review process mainly serves quality assurance and is a quality enhancement of publications. After the initial review by the organisers, the contribution will be submitted to two selected experts. In addition to the forwarded article, the experts receive the correspondingly prepared check lists and forms in which they can note their comments, change requests or notes. The experts may assess and evaluate the article using the following check list:
- Does the article cover a subject of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or electrical drive technology in machine and plant design and does it offer anything new to the participant?
- Has it been published previously?
- Is the article well-structured, of adequate length concerning the subject covered and well readable?
- Is the article structured correctly in a formal sense (third person) and free of advertising?
- Is the analysis – if included – sound?
- Are the pictures unambiguous and informative, and do they match the text?
- Is the bibliography complete and does it match with standard conventions?
- Is the title concise and the summary appropriate?
- Is a nomenclature included if equations and formulas are used?
- Do the units used correspond with the conventions?
These notes should provide orientation for assessment without limiting it; they do not claim to be comprehensive.
The examination process remains anonymous, i.e. the author or authors are not informed of the name and origin of the referees. This prevents direct contact with the referees, which may influence their judgement. Basically, the referees can make the following recommendations:
The article should be
- used as it is,
- accepted with the changes enclosed,
- only accepted if the named important changes are included,
- rejected with the requirement of complete revision.
If comments are made, the forms are anonymised by the organisers and then forwarded to the author or authors so that the article can be revised accordingly. The article will only be published as a reviewed contribution with the referee's agreement after this revision.
Why optional?
Many public institutions that support research projects require a regular publication of their results. To ensure that these results are in fact of scientific value, the assessment by a third party is often required. This process is known as peer-review and due to its demanding logistics is increasingly rare. The Institute for Fluid Power Drives and Controls (IFAS) and organisers of the 9th IFK in Aachen still want scientists to have the opportunity to have their work reviewed accordingly, so as to demonstrate its scientific value.
By tradition the IFK unites scientists with industry in an international forum to exchange their knowledge. Therefore, a peer-review only makes sense for some of the authors. At this juncture the IFAS would like to point out that the peer-review is intended in no way to classify the papers, but only to support the need for review.
How do I submit my paper for peer-review?
When you submit your abstract at the following Link, you shall be asked to select a preferred presentation format. There you have the option to choose between: Oral (presentation), Symposium (presentation preferred in symposium) and Poster (no presentation, just exhibition of a poster). Furthermore, for both presentation formats an extra option is available: reviewed. By selecting this option you request a peer-review.
What happens if the paper fails the review?
If your paper does not pass the review or if you miss a deadline, it will be treated as a conventional article and published accordingly. No evidence relating to an incomplete review will be printed.
Guidelines for the review process:
The review process mainly serves quality assurance and is a quality enhancement of publications. After the initial review by the organisers, the contribution will be submitted to two selected experts. In addition to the forwarded article, the experts receive the correspondingly prepared check lists and forms in which they can note their comments, change requests or notes. The experts may assess and evaluate the article using the following check list:
- Does the article cover a subject of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or electrical drive technology in machine and plant design and does it offer anything new to the participant?
- Has it been published previously?
- Is the article well-structured, of adequate length concerning the subject covered and well readable?
- Is the article structured correctly in a formal sense (third person) and free of advertising?
- Is the analysis – if included – sound?
- Are the pictures unambiguous and informative, and do they match the text?
- Is the bibliography complete and does it match with standard conventions?
- Is the title concise and the summary appropriate?
- Is a nomenclature included if equations and formulas are used?
- Do the units used correspond with the conventions?
These notes should provide orientation for assessment without limiting it; they do not claim to be comprehensive.
The examination process remains anonymous, i.e. the author or authors are not informed of the name and origin of the referees. This prevents direct contact with the referees, which may influence their judgement. Basically, the referees can make the following recommendations:
The article should be
- used as it is,
- accepted with the changes enclosed,
- only accepted if the named important changes are included,
- rejected with the requirement of complete revision.
If comments are made, the forms are anonymised by the organisers and then forwarded to the author or authors so that the article can be revised accordingly. The article will only be published as a reviewed contribution with the referee's agreement after this revision.
Important Dates
-
8th – 10th March 2016
10th IFK in Dresden -
19th – 21th March 2018
11th IFK in Aachen
Partners & Sponsors
Your contact person
Dirk Schulze Schencking
Academic Staff/ Wiss. Mitarbeiter
RWTH Aachen University, IFAS
Steinbachstraße 53
52074 Aachen