Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems (TOMPECS)


enter search term and/or author name

Social Media

Information and guidelines for reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review a paper for ACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems. The Editorial Board of ToMPECS is committed to publishing the most interesting and stimulating papers in performance modeling.

Quality and efficiency in reviewing is essential to the success of ToMPECS. To publish papers in a timely fashion we ask you to complete your review within Two Weeks.

Review System

Reviews are entered through the Manuscript Central ACM ToMPECS interface

  1. to log in for the first time:
    fill in the User ID; click on the 'Check for existing account' button to retrieve your password; change your password, edit your address information and areas of expertise by clicking the appropriate buttons.
  2. to access the manuscript:
    log in with your user ID; click 'Reviewer Center' from the main menu; click the underlined title and then the file name to download the manuscript.
  3. to access responses to previous reviews (revised manuscipts):
    in the reviewer center, click 'View Manuscript Info'; in the 'Manuscript History' section, click the 'Response to Reviewers' button.
  4. to submit your review:
    in the reviewer center, click the 'Score Manuscript' button; complete the review form and click 'Save Review'; click 'Submit Review to Associate Editor' button if you are finished with your review, or 'Leave Open' to continue your review later.
  5. For further instructions:
    please refer to the ScholarOne tutorial for referees.

Review Structure

Please address the following points in your review:

  1. Short summary of the paper (2 paragraphs max)
  2. What are the major contributions of the paper?
  3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper?
    (Does the paper fit within the aims and scope of ToMPECS? Does the work have a perceptual component? Is the work technically sound? Is the experimental design and analysis adequate? Is the treatment of the subject complete? Does the paper cite and use appropriate references? Is the quality of the presentation adequate?)
  4. Suggestions for improvement
  5. Overall recommendation

Ethics and Guidelines

Please treat the material in a submitted paper as confidential. Once you have read the paper and it is in your head it is impossible to pretend you have not absorbed the information. But please make every conscious effort not to use or build upon the material in the paper until it has seen publication.

Please write clear reviews that are meaningful for the authors. Speak in particulars, not generalities. Never characterize the authors. Give constructive criticism when discussing a problem. If there are major flaws, identify them as clearly as possible. The tone of your review is very important to our effort to create a community of scholars and practitioners. It is always possible to be constructive and firm without being hostile. Keep in mind that often the problem could be primarily in communication. Even in the worst case, where the work cannot be salvaged, one can explain how better to design related research.

Rarely do all reviewers agree on a submission, so the detailed evaluation of the merits and deficiencies of a paper is needed. If you like the paper immensely, do not assume other reviewers will feel the same way. Describe in detail what you think is important about it and how it will contribute to theory or practice. If you are sure the paper should be rejected, you should explain why, politely, but in detail, because other reviewers may recommend acceptance. Often, first submissions receive a Revise and Resubmit recommendation; for the authors of these papers, your detailed comments will be of tremendous use in guiding the revision of their work.

All ACM Journals | See Full Journal Index