Guide for Reviewers

Thank you for your time and effort to review. Please find below further information on the reviewing process.


We would greatly appreciate if you could return your review to us within 28 days of agreeing to review. We will send you a friendly reminder after 21 days.

Reviewing system

Please submit your reviews via EasyChair here.

About the Journal of Personal and Ubiquitous Computing


Personal and Ubiquitous Computing publishes peer-reviewed international research on handheld, wearable and mobile information devices and the pervasive communications infrastructure that supports them to enable the seamless integration of technology and people in their everyday lives. The journal carries compellingly-written, timely and accessible contributions that illuminate the technological, social and design challenges of personal and ubiquitous computing technologies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing is an essential resource for researchers and educators who wish to understand the implications of ubiquitous computing.

Reviewing criteria

The primary criteria for evaluation of all papers is the research’s contribution. What does the submission provide to the field of interactive TV and online video experiences? In your review you will be asked you to rank (and later comment) on the contribution and the suitability for the theme issue separately. This is to recognize that some papers may have a strong contribution but not necessarily to the scope of this theme issue, whereas other papers may be clearly suitable to the theme issue but weak in its contribution. Additionally, you will need to rank and comment on the technical quality (related work, methods, data, analysis) of the paper as well as on the clarity of presentation. 

Reviews should cover the 1) contribution of the paper, 2) positive and negative aspects on the methodology, and 3) provide suggestions for changes or improvements. The authors should receive constructive feedback, as they have spent, as we all do, a lot of time doing their work and writing it up. That should be acknowledged in your review even if the paper might not be accepted, but can help the authors in future iterations.
We understand that formatting issues, or language, are a problem but with some guidance they could be easily fixed for a final version, thus we would like you to think about what the papers offers to the community first and then the other issues.


Accept – An Accept with no revision means that the submission is perfect and there are no further suggestions for improvement. In your view, the paper is ready for publication. The paper would be published in the digital library as soon as possible. Please note that a paper rarely achieves this in the first round.

Minor Revision – A Minor revision should only be used for papers that have a clear contribution to the theme issue, and there are only small changes (typically textual changes) that need to be made to make the paper ready for publication.

Major Revision – Major revision means that the submission has a clear contribution to the theme issue, but changes to the description of the methodology are needed, additional evidence from the original study needs to be presented, and/or presentation needs major changes to make it journal quality. The authors should not be asked to revise a manuscript if the chance of being conditionally accepted is inexistent.

Reject – This rating is used when the submission is off topic for the theme issue or if it is only an incremental contribution over prior work. To recommend rejection of a paper you should be confident that no amount of additional work on the paper is likely to make it acceptable for publication. You must be particularly clear as to why such a paper should be rejected.

Writing the review

The following suggestions are distilled from a variety of guides on reviewing and our own experience:

  • Start out with your own summary of the manuscript.
  • Comment on the relevance to the PUC Theme Issue “Interactive Experiences for Television and Online Video”.
  • Describe the significance of the contribution in your own words.
  • Comment on your ratings on the technical quality (methods, data, analysis) as well as the clarity of the presentation (readability and suitability of tables, figures, and diagrams).
  • Summarize your main points. Be polite and give “action-able” advice. If you are aware of past work against which this paper can be judged, please mention it, whether or not the authors have cited it.
  • If rejecting the manuscript, suggest what future research efforts might examine.
  • If recommending a revision, spell out recommendations for how the revision could be done to get the paper accepted.
  • Provide citations or a bibliography.

Confidential remarks for the guest editors:

Please use this section to let the editors know what your expertise does, and does not, cover. Or even things you want to say to editors and not necessarily to the authors.


Please email us on if you have any questions about the reviewing process. We look forward to receiving your reviews.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s