Peer reviewers play an important role in the publication process by providing detailed and professional comments. IEEE conferences and publications match the topics of submitted papers with peer reviewers who are experts in those fields.

We thank you in advance for the services you would like to offer as a reviewer on our EDUNINE2022 Program Committee. The quality of the EDUNINE Annual Conference is based on the reviews you provide. After the EDUNINE2022 conference, we will send you the certificate of your active participation as a reviewer.

When you volunteer to be a reviewer for EDUNINE, you select topic areas. If possible, submissions from these topic areas will be assigned to you approximately one week after the deadline for submissions (see Important Dates). Each submission will be reviewed at least by three different reviewer. Each reviewer will be assigned approximately three submissions.

You have approximately one month to submit your reviews. Please submit all reviews through the EDUNINE OpenConf review system before the deadline (see instructions Reviewer Registration and Submission).

Papers submitted for the EDUNINE conference will be

1. Full papers (up to 6 pages) may be subject to double-blind or single-blind peer review at the author's choice. Our proposal is double-blind. Please see the Full Paper Paper Submission Instructions for more information.
2. Work in Progress (WIP) Papers (up to 4 pages and paper title begins with “Work-in-Progress”) may be subject to double-blind or single-blind peer review at the author's choice. Our proposal is double-blind. Please see the instructions Work-in-Progress Paper Submission for more detailed information.
3. Workshop Proposals (2 to 6 pages and paper title begins with “Workshop”) are subject to mandatory single-blind peer review. See the Workshop Proposal Submission instructions for more details on the requirements.

The EDUNINE review model consists of two rounds of review:

Authors submit a paper for peer review (first round), which is reviewed and either accepted, rejected, or requires minor or major revision. Authors submit papers with revisions that incorporate the changes made in response to the first round reviews and are reviewed by a member of the EDUNINE Technical Committee (second round). After the additional reviews, the paper may be rejected or accepted. If accepted, authors submit the final, camera-ready version.

Submitted manuscripts (Full or WIP Papers, or Workshop Proposals) must not have already been accepted for publication or simultaneously submitted for review to another journal, book, conference, or workshop.

All manuscripts will be reviewed on the basis of submission type, originality, technical content and/or research, depth, rigor and relevance to the conference, and readability in English.

Reviewers are asked to ensure confidentiality of all information about the manuscript.

If the reviewer suspects a possible conflict of interest between him/her and the submitted manuscript, he/she must decline the review and send an email to the EDUNINE Technical Program Chair.

When you first receive e-mail notifications that review assignments have been made, it is strongly recommended that you read the short abstracts for all the submissions assigned to you in your account of the EDUNINEOpenConf System (see the Reviewer Registration and Submission page on the Reviewer Section of the EDUNINE2022 Site)

If after reading the abstract and/or manuscript and you don’t feel that you have the expertise to provide a quality review of the submission, or you will not be able to conduct the review by the deadline, please notify the EDUNINE Technical Program Chair of that paper as soon as possible so that the submission can be reassigned.

You should evaluate the article with the following questions in mind:

• Is the study well designed and well executed?
• Is the existing body of relevant work acknowledged?
• Are the results interpreted and reported correctly? Have all other possible interpretations been duly considered?
• Are the results overly preliminary or speculative?
• Does the research contribute to the body of scientific knowledge in the field?
• Is the article appropriate for this conference?
• Is the article written in clear, concise language?

During the peer review process, you look for:

• Scope: Is the paper appropriate for the scope of this conference?
• Novelty: Is this original material distinct from previous publications?
• Validity: Is the study well designed and executed?
• Data: Are the data reported, analyzed, and interpreted correctly?
• Clarity: Are the ideas expressed clearly, concisely, and logically?
• Compliance: Are all ethical and publication requirements met?
• Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?
• English: Is the standard of English considered to be good enough for publication?
• Format: Is the Paper conforming to the conference Manuscript Templates styles?

Follow the publication’s instructions for submitting feedback, suggestions, and a recommended decision. Remember that your commentary should always be thorough and professional.

While each type of paper is evaluated on organization, technical content, motivation, context, educational goals, experiences and potential contribution, you may be looking for different things depending on the paper.

All manuscripts should show appropriate organization and should reflect the literature that already exists related to the topic being discussed. All claims should be supported by logical arguments that follow from ideas, experience or data provided.

Here are some useful guidelines from the literature:

• Your job as a reviewer is to write detailed reviews, even for excellent papers. In addition to telling the authors what you didn't like about their paper, be sure to include what you did like as well.
• Even if your opinion is that the paper is poorly written or poorly thought-out, you can still provide constructive criticisms to help the authors, and in the long run, the conference. Think of your goal as convincing the authors of the paper you're reviewing to submit something else next year, but of such high quality that it will be well-reviewed and easily accepted. Give the authors advice on how to do that.
• The best reviews clearly justify the reviewer's choice of rating. The least valuable review gives a low score with no written comments. That simply tells the authors that they have been unsuccessful, with no indication of how or why.
• The focus of your review should be on content.
• Your review should be based on the merits of the paper, not the reputation of the authors or their institutions.
• It is your responsibility to give a fair and unbiased review, using only the information in the paper. If you do not feel that you can give a fair, unbiased review of the paper and not the authors or institutions, please contact the program chairs immediately.
• Please point out typographic and grammatical errors; if there are too many to list, please state so in your review.
• Although the conference requires all submitted papers to be polished work, all accepted authors get a brief opportunity to improve the presentation of their paper before their final paper is due. Your detailed feedback may help improve a paper, and to improve the conference.

• The organization of the units on Robotics was well done. However, the discussion of how it fits into the curriculum is overly broad and not too realistic. Many factors were overlooked on the curriculum side.
• Good level of detail on your approach. The first Table is very handy. But after the Table, the log analysis and auditing example image is quite difficult to read. How will you ensure additional auditing strategies are implemented?
• The paper was easy to read, although it could benefit from a review of the English sentence structure. The paper was organized in an easy-to-follow manner. The authors explained their motivations and methods for their study.
• The paper could use additional proofing and polishing. I suggest finding a non-robotics person to read for both language and communication. Some sentences are poorly formed (e.g., sentence 4 of first paragraph in 1. Introduction. Some content seems misplaced (e.g., discussion of security in section 4.
• The organization is faultless. It is very clear what the paper is going to say and how. The paper follows through with crystal clear subject headings and a logical flow of information. There are some grammatical problems; these are not serious, but a thorough proof-reading would be helpful.
• I would have liked to see some discussion and references setting this work in the context of other studies of student learning and knowledge retention. While I don't know of other studies that have examined exactly the phenomenon this paper does, a short search in the technical digital library turned up these examples that are relevant...
• This paper makes a very good argument in the introduction for why this course is needed. It is timely and addresses a topic outside of the norm often seen at an Education in Engineering Conference.
• The hypotheses are too obvious and the validation of them is not enough. Therefore, the contribution of this paper is quite limited.
• This paper should generate a lot of discussion and have a good audience. It is a topic that many universities are trying to address.
• Hard to judge given the writing organization problems, but I do not see a lot of significance here. The verification that the hands-on experiences helped more than the simulations on-line alone is a nice result, if it is supported by the data. Having taught this course already and collected feedback on your approach makes the paper stronger.
• It is important for those who might be considering this approach to know that it can be successful.
• This is a good, interesting topic, accessible to the conference audience, and widely useful.
• A good practical beginning guide to implementing lab exercises in a control course.
• Given the potential interest in this topic the authors could do better to capture the imagination of the reader; perhaps with a paragraph or two on famous cases.

EDUNINE also provides a special review of English grammar and punctuation. Reviewers are not required to correct individual spelling or grammatical errors. If there are many such errors, suggest that the author take more care. Please indicate one of the following options in your text at the end of your assessment to indicate which work needs to be checked by our English teachers:

LANGUAGE AND EXPRESSION: Evaluate and assess the organization, language, and English expression in the manuscript.

• (5: Excellent, exemplary use of language that enhances the quality of the paper.
• (4: Good, appropriate as it is
• (3: Adequate, may need to be revised after proofreading.
• (2: Poor language, needs to be rewritten in standard English.
• (1: Very difficult to understand

Please remember that many of those who submit to EDUNINE are not native English speakers or are at the beginning of their careers. Please be helpful in your critique, even for weaker submissions.

A specific, detailed, and educative evaluation in "Comments for Authors" is invaluable for authors to improve their submissions. In addition, these Comments for Authors and, optionally, the Comments for the Chair, allow the Technical Committee members to decide for each submission the acceptance decision summary of all reviews for each submission before sending the reviewers’ Comments for Authors to authors.

The Technical Committee members proceed with the second round of review for resubmitted papers that have been accepted with minor or major improvements. The second review verifies that the author has made the changes, format, and English improvements suggested by the reviewers before accepting the final version.