Guidelines for Reviewing

Reviewing is single-blind (the identities of reviewers are not known to authors, but that of the authors is known to the reviewers). At least three reviewers will review each submission that is not a desk reject. Of course, no conflicts of interest are allowed, and authors of papers may not come into contact with any part of the reviewing process.

• Significance: Does the paper constitute a significant, technically correct contribution to the field that is appropriate for D&D? Is it sufficiently different from prior published work (by the author or others) to merit a new publication? Is it clear how the work advances the current state of understanding, and why the advance matters?
• Related Work and Discussion: Are strength and limitations and generality of the research adequately discussed, in particular in relation to related work? Do the authors clearly acknowledge and identify the contributions of their predecessors?
• Evaluation: Do the authors evaluate their work in some way (theoretically and/or empirically)? Are all claims clearly articulated and supported either by empirical experiments or theoretical analyses?
• Interdisciplinary Relevance: Besides assessing standard aspects of scientific rigor and impact, reviewers should assess the interdisciplinary significance of manuscripts.
• Clarity: Is it written in a way such that an interested reader with a background in either Psychology or Logic/Language/Information, but no special knowledge of the paper's sub ject, could understand and appreciate the paper's results? In particular,
  1. Is it written in a clear, readable style, with good grammar and few (if any) typographical errors?
  2. Are the goals and contributions of the work clearly and correctly stated?
  3. Are the problem description, approach and evaluation (if relevant) adequately detailed for others to replicate the work?
  4. If the paper introduces new terminology or techniques, does it explain why current terminology or techniques are insufficient?
  5. Does it include examples?
• Feedback for Authors: Although timeliness is important in reviewing, providing substantive feedback to authors is also important. Reviewers should view their tasks as scientific communication and as helping authors improve the quality of their work in a constructive and collegial manner.
• Recommendation: Please also recommend a decision: accept, conditional accept, reject with encouragement to revise and resubmit, and reject. If you suggest conditional accept, please provide a precise list of changes that can easily be checked upon resubmission.