% Review form, Journal of Computer Security, LaTeX

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\oddsidemargin 18pt
\evensidemargin 18pt
\topmargin -30pt
\textheight 620pt
\textwidth 432pt

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\LARGE\bf JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SECURITY}\\[.2in]
{\Large\it Manuscript Review Form}\\[.2in]
\end{center}
\begin{tabbing}
\hspace*{3in} \= \kill
Date Sent:	\>	Please return form to: \\
Date to be returned:\\

Version:		\\

Author(s): \\

Title: \\

Name of Referee:
\end{tabbing}

{\footnotesize\it
In accordance with the Instructions to Referees (see Page 2), please 
complete the following review form.  Sections 
I and II are for the editor only; Section III will be returned to the author(s).}
\vspace{.2in}
\begin{center} { \large\bf
I.  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION }
\end{center}

\noindent SUMMARY OF EVALUATION (please circle appropriate answer):
\begin{tabbing}
Strongmmm \= Acceptablemmm  \= Acceptablemmm  \= Unacceptablemmm 
\= Unacceptable \kill
Strong\> Acceptable	\> Marginally	\> Marginally	\> Unacceptable \\
Accept		\> \> 	Acceptable	\> Unacceptable \\
\end{tabbing}

\noindent RECOMMENDATION (please check appropriate answer):
\begin{tabbing}
RECOMM \= [\hspace{1em}] \= \kill
	\> [\hspace{1em}]	\> Accept with no changes.\\
	
	\> [\hspace{1em}]	\> Accept if certain minor revisions are made (see Section III).\\

	\> [\hspace{1em}]	\> Author should prepare a major revision (see Section III) for \\
	\> 	\> a second review.  (Not applicable if the paper is already a major \\
	\> 	\> revision of a previously reviewed paper.)\\

	\> [\hspace{1em}]	\> Reject.\\[.3in]


If the paper is rejected for publication in the JCS, the author should:\\

\> [\hspace{1em}]\> Prepare a major revision and resubmit to the 
JCS as a ``new'' paper.\\

\> [\hspace{1em}]\> Submit to another journal: \\

\> [\hspace{1em}]\> Regard the paper as not publishable.
\end{tabbing}
\newpage
\begin{center}
{\large\bf INSTRUCTIONS TO REFEREES}
\end{center}
\setlength{\baselineskip}{10pt}
{\footnotesize
Reviewers should see themselves as protectors of the 
quality of the JCS, as well as of the 
reputation of the authors who submit papers.  It 
is the reviewer's responsibility to make sure 
only high quality papers are published, and that 
the authors are protected from putting poor 
work into print.  From this perspective, the 
reviewer should not only read the papers 
thoroughly to find flaws but should also make 
recommendations to the authors as to how the 
paper might be improved.  For a contribution 
to be acceptable for publication, it must 
comprise novel material not previously published 
in an archival journal.  The novelty will 
usually lie in original results, methods, 
syntheses, or new insights into previously reported 
research.  If major revisions are recommended, 
the referee should point these out as 
specifically as possible, and should differentiate 
changes regarded as optional from those 
judged as mandatory.  If the revisions are 
extensive, it is perhaps best to reject the paper and 
recommend preparation of a ``new,'' radically revised 
manuscript for resubmission to the JCS.  
If a paper is rejected mainly on the basis of 
reader interest, the reviewer may wish to 
recommend submission to a more appropriate journal.  
Papers with little or no salvageable 
material should be rejected outright and 
discouraged from later submission.}

\begin{center}
{\large\bf II.  COMMENTS TO BE WITHELD FROM AUTHOR(S)}
\end{center}
\vspace{6in}
\noindent DATE:  \hspace{1in}	SIGNATURE OF REFEREE
\newpage

\begin{center}
{\large\bf
III.  DETAILED COMMENTS TO AUTHORS}
\end{center}
\noindent {\small {\it Reviewer:}  Please typewrite or print your 
comments and suggestions regarding the paper.  Particular 
attention should be given to details that guide possible 
revisions or explain reasons for rejection.  Feel free 
to continue on extra sheets if necessary.}
\setlength{\baselineskip}{12pt}


\end{document}
