This evaluation sheet or score card is used for the double-blind anonymous peer review of the short papers of the students submitted to the Non-Technical Project Seminar about scientific working and writing at the Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, Germany.

1. Please fill in your name and matriculation number for identification. The absence of valid
entries will result in failing the seminar. For double blinded feedback this part of the sheet will
be cut later, so please avoid any notes in the rest of the sheet that would indicate your identity.
reviewer name: matr. no.:
Evaluation of the Paper
Non-technical Project Seminar
Please fill in the title of the reviewed paper and the paper ID. The absence of valid entries will
result in failing the seminar.
reviewed
paper
title: paper ID:
1 Evaluation
Please answer all following questions carefully. Each positive answer counts as one point. The
sum of all points gives the result of the review according to section 2. Each negative answer
should be commented at the specific place on the paper using the number (e. g. 1.1.a) of the
question. Random or thoughtless answers will result in failing the seminar.
1.1 Content Yes No
1.1.a) Is the topic of the paper well explained? 2 2
1.1.b) Is made use of appropriate visualization when possible? 2 2
1.1.c) Is the abstract clear? 2 2
1.1.d) Is the title appropriate? 2 2
1.2 Outline Yes No
1.2.a) Is there an introduction, a main body and a summary or conclusion? 2 2
1.2.b) Are the titles of the sections meaningful? 2 2
1.2.c) Is the paper logically structured? 2 2
1.2.d) Does the work have an appropriate scope? 2 2
1.3 Expression
Yes No
1.3.a) Is the written language of appropriate quality? 2 2
1.3.b) Are the sentences well readable? 2 2
1.3.c) Are the used (technical) terms appropriate to the chosen topic? 2 2
1.3.d) Is the orthography accurate? 2 2
1.3.e) Is the grammar accurate? 2 2
1.3.f) Is the text free from “plenking” or “klemping”? 2 2
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenken)
1.4 Introduction Yes No
1.4.a) Is the topic clearly stated in the introduction? 2 2
1.4.b) Is a brief overview of the work given? 2 2

2. Please declare by your signature that you carefully evaluated the given paper and filled in all
requested information in all conscience.
,
date signature
1.5 Body
Yes No
1.5.a) Is the main part clearly distinguished from the introduction/conclusion? 2 2
1.5.b) Does the body contain all main statements and results of the work? 2 2
1.5.c) Are the main statements and results critically discussed in the body? 2 2
1.5.d) Do all figures and tables feature a caption? 2 2
1.5.e) Are all figures and tables referred to in the text? 2 2
1.6 Conclusion Yes No
1.6.a) Is a brief summary of the main results given? 2 2
1.6.b) Is an outlook given? 2 2
1.7 Literature Yes No
1.7.a) Is a comprehensive bibliography given? 2 2
1.7.b) Are all items in the bibliography related to in the text? 2 2
1.7.c) Are all citations in the text marked correctly? 2 2
1.7.d) Each reference features an author, a title and a year of publication? 2 2
1.8 Layout
Yes No
1.8.a) Are the layout requirements met? (font size, font, text alignment) 2 2
1.8.b) Is the layout style appropriate and appealing? 2 2
1.8.c) Is the format consistent throughout the paper? 2 2
2 Results
Each positive answer gives one point. Please count every positive answer and fill in the total
number of points. Also, if you understand the reviewed paper, please summarize it in one
sentence. If you do not understand the paper, please give a meaningful comment why.
achieved total summarize or comment
content of 4
outline of 4
expression of 6
introduction of 2
body of 5
conclusion of 2
literature of 4
layout of 3
sum of 30
points 0-14 15-19 20-25 26-28 29-30
rating failed bad okay good excellent