home | about | contact us | submit a resource | search | browse resources | login

Note to Reviewers Thank you for your time and effort to review a resource for the CSTC. It is with the efforts of concerned individuals, such as yourself, that the CSTC will grow as a valuable resource for computer science educators. Review Instructions Review Criteria Review Process

Review Instructions

Step 1 If you have not already done so, create a CSTC account and volunteer as a reviewer. A CSTC editor will send you an e-mail message inviting you to review a resource. Step 2 Login to the CSTC and click on your 'assigned reviews' link in the upper right corner. You will see a one line summary of the resource you have been asked to review. One link will take you to the resource, another link will take you to the online review form. Go to the resource page and become familiar with it. Download any required pieces. Spend sufficient time with the resource to evaluate its overall quality and usefulness. The amount of time necessary will depend on the resource. Assume you intend to use the resource in your course. Materials should be tested, as appropriate. Authors have been advised to provide testing materials and potential solutions when needed to facilitate the review process. (Solutions used for the purpose of testing are not to be disclosed. They are the property of the author. In general, solutions will not be published on-line as part of the CSTC.) Step 3 After completing your review, return to your 'assigned reviews' page. Click on the 'evaluate resource'. Complete the online reviewer form, and submit your review. You may find it convenient to compose your comments in a word processor and the paste them into the form. Please note: you may return to modify your review until it is complete. See a sample review form.

Review Criteria

The review form contains an area for private (confidential) comments to the Editor. All private information and questions are clearly marked. These remarks (as well as referee information) are strictly confidential and are not sent to the author. The remainder of the form is sent to the author. Spend sufficient time with the resource to discuss the following criteria. Use these questions as a guide during your review. Please make comments that are as constructive as possible. Authors spend significant time to create and submit their resources. Your comments should be meaningful and respectful. Effectiveness: Will the resource enhance or facilitate student learning? Is the resource effective at accomplishing its stated goals? Is it appropriate for its intended audience? Is is worthwhile? Significant? Likely to be used? Accuracy: Is the resource technically sound? Are the concepts correct and accurate? Does the resource operate correctly? Is the resource complete? Reusability: Is the resource easy to adapt or reuse in a different environment? Are instructions and presentation suitably generic? Clarity: Is the resource presented clearly? Is it well written? Is the user interface attractive and intuitive to use? Is any supporting documentation provided? Is it clear? Originality: Is the resource significantly different or better than previously 'published' material? Additional Questions What was your initial impression of the resource page. Were the objectives clear? Were the instructions for obtaining and using the resource clear? How long did it take you to install the resource (if applicable)? Briefly explain how you reviewed the resource. How much time did you spend? Did you actually use it in class or simply look it over? Did any students have an opportunity to use it? What specific suggestions do you have for the author to improve the resource? Overall, should the resource be accepted for publication in the CSTC? (private comments to the Editor only)

Review Process

An interested author contacts a CSTC editor or submits a resource on-line. CSTC staff work with the author to prepare the resource for review. The Editor contacts at least three people to review the resource. The Editor will take into consideration all reviewer comments and make a decision to accept, reject, or request modifications to the resource. If substantial improvements are made then the original reviewers may be asked to perform a follow up review.