In this book, you may find some techniques and ideas to become a smart reviewer. Every researcher can write research article but only few can review the article as it needs analytical thinking, creativity, literature skill and finally research experience. The best way of using this book is to read the whole article. After that select one research article from IEEE, ACM or any eminent journal and go through the whole article. Now sit back and relax to use your reviewing skill.

1. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
How To Review A Research Article? – A Black
Book To Become A Smart Reviewer.
In this book, you may find some techniques and ideas to become a smart reviewer. Every researcher can write
research article but only few can review the article as it needs analytical thinking, creativity, literature skill and
finally research experience.
The best way of using this book is to read the whole article. After that select one research article from IEEE, ACM
or any eminent journal and go through the whole article. Now sit back and relax to use your reviewing skill.
Review: 1
It seems interesting for readers.
Or, The paper is interesting and good to accept.
Or, Reasonable work and interesting and fits within the scope.
However, the paper can be enhanced by sticking with the following changes.
- A more comprehensive and clearer conclusion is expected.
- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the approach.
- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
- Improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the
final camera-ready version.
- Including some discussions with existing method which could prove the proposed method effectiveness will
improve the quality of the paper.
- The approach can be discussed with some other existing techniques.
- Sentences / English polishing will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready version.
- The references in this manuscript are somewhat out-of-date.Include more recent researches in this field.
Review: 2
The paper looks good to accept in general.
Although the idea is interesting, I recommend to improvement article with some comments as below:
- More description for experiments should be done.
- The method can be explained in a clearer way.Try to explain the theory more detailed in discussion.
- The references in this manuscript are somewhat out-of-date.In clude more recent researches in this field.
- The manuscript has not been carefully written.
- Some figures can not show on my computer, such as fig.2 and fig.3.
- There are many grammar mistakes as well, eg the first sentences of the fifth paragraph.
- The reason of using certain parameters in the experiments should be discussed in more details.

2. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
Review: 3
Overall concept of the paper is enough to accept for conference.
However, there are some issues needed some improvements:
-- To improve the quality of the paper, please check your sentences and / or English one more time.
-- Also author can describe more technical descriptions and it will help to improve the quality.
-- Including some discussions with existing method which could prove the proposed method
effectiveness will improve the quality of the paper.
-- The contribution of the paper can be enhanced if it would discuss the advantages of using the
proposed method.
-- Generally reasonable paper, but when you submit your final version to the system, to improve the
quality of the paper, please check your sentences and / or English one more time.
Review: 4
This paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
But too short, more extension will help to improve the quality and contribution of the paper.
- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the approach.
- English and sentences polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready
version.
- There should be a review of the writing to effect minor corrections.
Final Decision: Acceptable
Review: 5
The authors present a good technical paper with relevant topic and proper research methodology. I consider that it is
a very interesting paper and matches well to the conference session. According to these factors, my recommendation
is ACCEPT.
-- Including some discussions with existing method which could prove the proposed method
effectiveness will improve the quality of the paper.
In conclusion, the paper is well written and its structure is well organized. Some of the works are described in
details. My recommendation is accept. But some revisions of English sentences will improve the quality of the
paper.
Final Decision: Acceptable
Review: 6
The work is solid and the paper is well written and the simulations results are good. I consider that it is a very
interesting paper and matches well to the conference session. According to these factors, my recommendation is
ACCEPT.
Review: 7
Good Work. Overall it is a well written paper.
The authors presented ………
The author focused on ……..
In this paper, the author presents …….
The paper is well presented by the authors.
However, some modifications should be made to improve the paper organization, as follows:

3. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
Review: 8
Reasonable work and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
Overall, the work proposed is useful, the paper is organized well and the presentation is clear, I suggest that it should
be accepted by the conference.
Or,
Overall, the work proposed is useful and interesting: Accept.
However, some modifications should be made to improve the paper organization, as follows:
Review: 9
This is a good work.
-- The paper does not adhere with the standard formatting style sheet for the proceedings.The paper
uses a different template as of provided by the conference, so need to be changed accordingly.
Review: 10
This paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
Or, This paper is interesting and good to accept.
However, some modifications should be made to improve the paper organization, as follows:
- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
- Improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the
final camera-ready version
- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the approach.
- Sentences / English polishing will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready version.
- The approach can be discussed with some other existing techniques.
Review: 11
I think this paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
- Improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the
final camera-ready version.
- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the approach.
- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
- Sentences / English polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready
version.
Review: 12
(The Abstract Theory and experiment results: partial correction requested)
There is a good introduction, extensive explanation of the methods and a detailed research results.
Review: 13
This paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
But sentence and / or English polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-
ready version.

4. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
-- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the
approach.
-- The contribution of the paper can be enhanced if it would discuss the advantages of using the
proposed method.
-- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
Review: 14
(The Abstract Theory and experimental results: the structure portion of the request correction)
This paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
There is a good introduction, extensive explanation of the methods and a detailed research results.
- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the approach.
- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
- Improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the
final camera-ready version.
- The contribution of the paper can be enhanced if it would discuss the advantages of using the proposed method.
- Sentences polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready version.
Review: 15
(Theory-oriented Abstract: Partial correction requested)
This paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
There is a good introduction, extensive explanation of the methods.
-- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
-- Improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the
final paper in the final camera-ready version.
-- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the
approach.
-- The contribution of the paper can be enhanced if it would discuss the advantages of using the
proposed method.
-- But sentences including English polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper
in the final camera-ready version.
Review: 16
(Design-centric and do not experiment Abstract: Compared to other studies, required)
This paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
The presentation is clear and neat.
-- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
-- discussing with other works will improve the quality of the final version.
-- improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the
final paper in the final camera-ready version.
-- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the
approach.
-- English and sentences polishing will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final
camera-ready version.
Final decision: Acceptable
Review: 17
This paper has proper and good significance of theoretical and practical.However, the study may be more
reasonable if the author had considered the following situation:

5. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
-- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
-- improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the
final paper in the final camera-ready version.
-- The paper can be further improved and proper analysis can be shown to prove the strength of the
approach.
Review: 18
The quality of the paper is acceptable, and the topic is interesting and suitable for the conference.
But some revision with reviewers' comments will help to improve the quality of the paper in the final camera ready
version.
Review: 19
(Nice sentence polishing Abstract Request)
I think this paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
There is a good introduction, extensive explanation of the method and a detailed research results.
But Sentence polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready version.
But improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the final paper in
the final camera-ready version.
Review: 20
The context of this paper is organized properly. The goal of this paper is clear and also the justification of the
proposed idea.
-- The paper makes a good impression with a clear structure.
-- The paper is well presented and the idea is clear, interesting and promising.
-- The algorithms are discussed in detail, as well as some related work.
-- The paper addresses an important research issue in the research scope.
-- The contribution of the paper can be enhanced if it would discuss the advantages of using the proposed method.
Generally well written paper, but when you submit your final version to the IEEE system, to improve the quality of
the paper, please check your sentences and / or English one more time.
In conclusion, the paper is well written and its structure is well organized. Some of the works are described in
details. My recommendation is accept. But some revisions of English sentences will improve the quality of the
paper.
However, if the following revisions are considered in the future version, the improvements could be helpful to
enhance the content of this article.
Review: 21
It is important to check the (English) writing of the paper. There are many writing errors that do not help the reader
to concentrate and focus on the subject.
(Compared with more traditional research)
The discussion or comparison between the proposed method and previous well known methods is expected to be
added into the paper.

6. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
(Yet to let a comment)
I think this paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
But some revision with reviewers' comments will help to improve the quality of the paper in the final camera ready
version.
(English and sentence at the end of this submission is to let one more reviews)
When you submit your final version to the IEEE system, to improve the quality of the paper, please check your
sentences and / or English one more time.
Review: 22
Authors present good technical paper with proper research methodology.
(Short Abstract reinforcement required)
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference. But too short, more extension will help to
improve the quality and contribution of the paper.
English and sentences polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready
version.
Review: 23
There is a good introduction, extensive explanation of the method and a detailed experimental result.
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
The presentation is clear and neat.
But English polishing will help to improve the quality of the final paper.
Review: 24
It is very practical. Some English sentences of the paper may need some revisions. The presentation is clear and
neat. Experimental results show that the approach is very effective. If possible, including some comparison table
with other methods would make this paper more convincible. If possible, more detailed description would make this
paper more convincible.
Review: 25
This is very practical level papers about ....
More description about theoretical implication or meaning of core technologies needed ....
Review: 26
The paper is technically well written and polished, providing a detailed explication of theoretical aspects such as
conditions and theorems, and practical issues like algorithms, rules and possible applications. I think this paper is
interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
Review: 27
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference. But more analysis in the experimental
results will improve the quality of the paper.
Some English sentences of the paper may need some revisions.

7. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
Review: 28
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference. The results of system are promising.But
more experimental data will improve the paper's contribution.
Review: 29
The authors present a good technical paper with relevant topic and proper research methodology.
But authors are encouraged to provide more detailed comment for some sentences and figures to improve the quality
of the final version.
Review: 30
The paper is technically well written and polished, providing a detailed explication of design and application
aspects. I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
Review: 31
The model proposed in the paper has merits which are worthy of being accepted for presentation at the
conference.However, the authors require including some discussion to justify the claims made about the proposed
model.
Review: 32
(Short Abstract reinforcement required)
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference. But too short, more extension will help to
improve the quality and contribution of the paper.
Review: 33
Authors have to clarify what is the issue to address; in Introduction section, only applied method was
presented.What is the goal of the work and why is it important to achieve?
Some revision will help to improve the quality of the paper in the final camera ready version.
Review: 34
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference but need to clarify what is goal of the
paper more clearly. Authors just suggest without any result. I encourage authors to put some advantages and
analysis of the proposed methods.
Review: 35
The paper is technically well written and polished, providing a detailed explication of theoretical and analysis
aspects. I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference. But some revisions of English
sentences will improve the quality of the paper.

8. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
Review: 36
Although there is a need to expand the literature review, but the recent presentation is enough for conference
publication. Overall, it is a valuable academic paper in this field.
Review: 37
The paper is very interesting and good to accept.
However, some modifications should be made to improve the paper organization, as follows:
- The approach can be discussed with some other existing techniques.
In my opinion this paper is in the scope of the Conference, is well written (despite some minor typos) and presented
and the subject under study is interesting.Therefo re, in my opinion, this paper should be accepted for the
Conference.
Nice work and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
Review: 38
I think this paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope. But some revision with reviewers'
comments will help to improve the quality of the paper in the final camera ready version.
-- Clarity of presentation: Writing style is concise and explicit.Image quality is satis factory.And table
is detailed.
-- Significance to theory and application: The contribution of the paper to research and practice in the
field is fair.
-- The contribution of the paper can be enhanced if it would discuss the advantages of using the
proposed method.
-- Generally reasonable paper, but when you submit your final version to the system, to improve the
quality of the paper, please check your sentences and / or English one more time.
-- Including some discussions with existing method which could prove the proposed method
effectiveness will improve the quality of the paper.
-- The discussion with previous another method (or other methods) will be improved the quality of the
paper (just recommendation).
-- Including some discussions with existing method will improve the quality of the paper.
--
-- More description of the technical details will help to improve the quality.
-- Improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the
final paper in the final camera-ready version.
-- Please follow the format.
-- The paper does not adhere with the standard formatting style sheet for the proceedings.The paper
uses a different template as of provided by the conference, so need to be changed accordingly.
The quality of the paper is acceptable, and the topic is interesting and suitable for the conference.Therefore, it can
be accepted for the conference. However, it is suggested that the authors check the paper again and improve the
wordings.

9. Monzur Morshed (TigerHATS)
m.monzur@gmail.com
Dhaka, Bangladesh
TigerHATS © 2010
Review: 39
The authors present a good technical paper with relevant topic and proper research methodology.
But authors are encouraged to provide more detailed comment for some sentences and figures to improve the quality
of the final version.
My recommendation is accept. But some revisions of English sentences will improve the quality of the paper.
Final Decision: Acceptable
Review: 40
I think this paper is acceptable and interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
When you submit your final version to the system, to improve the quality of the paper, please check your sentences
and / or English one more time.
Review: 41
(Just a nice phrase)
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference.
There is a good introduction, extensive explanation of the proposed method.
But improving the presentation to emphasize the author's goal will help to improve the quality of the final paper in
the final camera-ready version.
Review: 42
(Short Abstract reinforced request)
I think this paper is interesting and fits within the scope of the conference. But too short, more extension will help to
improve the quality and contribution of the paper.
English and sentences polishing a little will help to improve the quality of the final paper in the final camera-ready
version.