When reviewing papers for feedback and recommending improvements, consider the following questions:

• Is the study well designed and well executed?
• Does the paper acknowledge the existing body of relevant work?
• Are the results interpreted and reported correctly, considering all possible interpretations?
• Are the results overly preliminary or speculative?
• Does the research contribute significantly to the scientific knowledge in the field?
• Is the paper suitable for presentation at this conference?
• Is the paper written in clear, concise language?

Throughout the peer review process, assess the following:

• Scope: Is the paper appropriate for the conference's scope?
• Novelty: Does the paper present 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: Does the paper make a significant contribution to the field?
• English: Is the standard of English sufficient for publication?
• Format: Does the paper conform to conference manuscript style guidelines?

Follow the publication’s instructions for submitting feedback, suggestions, and recommended decisions. Remember to provide thorough and professional commentary.

Additional guidelines from the literature:

• Your role as a reviewer is to provide detailed feedback, including positives and areas for improvement.
• Even for papers you find poorly written or thought-out, offer constructive criticism to assist the authors and enhance future submissions.
• Justify your ratings clearly in your reviews. A low score without explanations offers little value to the authors.
• Focus your review on content.
• Ensure fairness and objectivity in your assessment based solely on the paper's content.
• While the conference requires polished submissions, do not reject papers based solely on English writing quality or formatting issues. Report such issues as requested in the Manuscript English Quality section; formatting issues should be noted to the chair.
• Accepted papers may require minor or major improvements. Your detailed feedback can significantly contribute to paper improvement and conference enhancement.

• 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.