Guidelines for Evaluating Submissions to Ergonomics in Design

Reviewers: Please note that these questions are intended to assist you in your evaluation of the submission. Your review, however, should be a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, comprising original, constructive comments. It should not include this list of questions nor should it merely be a list of your answers to them.

  1. Does the article meet the major criterion of Ergonomics in Design, as expressed in the quarterly's mission? "Ergonomics in Design provides information on applications of human factors/ergonomics and informs readers about the potential contributions that professionals in this field can make to improve the design of any system, tool, environment, or product with which people interact."

  2. Is the article based on applied human factors design work or design process? Did a real product, service, or system result from this work? Is it a real business case study?

  3. Could readers use the thoughts, tools, and practical results of the article to convince a client or non-human factors manager to apply human factors principles to a product or system development project?

  4. Does the article provide readers with valuable and accessible tools they could use in the real-time practice of human factors (e.g., concept analysis, design, test and evaluation, training, etc.)?

  5. Is the purpose of the article explained clearly at the beginning? If a study is described, did the author clearly explain its rationale/purpose, methods, challenges, and findings? Does the conclusion include reasonable recommendations or call to action?

  6. Is the article written so that it appeals as much as possible to those in different domains and be of broad interest, including, particularly, for practitioners?

  7. Would the article be improved if there were support material in the form of side-bars or by a Department focus?

  8. Does the article's level of interest to readers justify its length? (Note: articles can be of different lengths, from 1500 to 3000 words. Also, article formats can vary. For example, some articles may benefit from being short with independent support pieces.)

  9. Given the additional purpose of the quarterly—to appeal to those outside the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society who are interested in ergonomics—would the article influence nonmember readers to subscribe if they did not practice human factors but did manage the development of new products, systems, or services?

  10. If the article contains opinions or speculations, are these reasonable and balanced?

  11. Does the article inappropriately promote a product or service in which the author appears to have a vested interest?

  12. Is there anything stated or implied that might present an unreasonable risk of criticism or liability to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society?

  13. Is the writing clear and concise? Is the structure logical and does it accomplish the author's purpose and intent?

  14. Disposition of the categories:

    1. Accept — No content revisions requested of authors, although minor editing may still be necessary prior to publication.

    2. Accept pending minor revision — The authors will be asked to make a few substantive changes, but the revised manuscript will not be sent back to the Senior Editor.

    3. Encourage revision; good chance of success — The manuscript is likely to be acceptable if some substantive changes are made. The revision will be evaluated by the Senior Editor. He or she may work directly with the author to improve the manuscript.

    4. Suggest rewrite and resubmission; revision unlikely to succeed — The manuscript covers a topic appropriate for EID, but the manuscript needs significant work before a decision can be made about the quality of its content. If the authors resubmit the manuscript, it will receive a second full review (both the Senior Editor and the supporting reviewers will take a look at it).

    5. Reject; poor fit or work is fatally flawed — The manuscript's topic is not suitable for EID, or the work is fatally flawed.