---
# Paper JOT-SI-XXX

## TITLE: XXX

## AUTHORS: XXX

## RECEIVED: XXX

## ASSOCIATE EDITOR: XXX

## REVIEWER: XXX

## Confidential Comments (authors will not see these comments)

---

## Recommendation
> Please indicate one of: ACCEPT/REVISE/REJECT.

## Public Comments (these will be made available to the author)
> Please include a brief summary of the main contributions of the paper, pros and cons,
> justification for the recommendation, and detailed remarks indicating how to improve
> the presentation of the paper. Your review should take into account relevance,
> originality, timeliness, significance and presentation.

---

# Advice for Referees

> (Adopted from the advice for Journal of Functional Programming, at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=656.)
> 
> Refereeing is a vital task. It can vastly improve the quality of a
> paper, and contributes to improving the science as a whole. The
> editors of JOT greatly value the work done by referees: Thank you.
> 
> Prompt refereeing is very important to JOT, and we ask that referee
> reports be completed in six weeks. If you cannot make that deadline,
> please write back immediately. If you can, please confirm now that
> you'll referee the paper. If it takes more than six weeks, we'll
> contact you to find out what's wrong. We've noticed that referees tend
> to delay over less good papers - rather than delay, please write a
> quick and short report explaining why the paper is unappealing.
> 
> Referees reports for JOT should contain three main sections:

## Comments to editor.

> This section is the place for comments that you wish to make to
> the editor but not the author.

## Recommendation and comments to editor.
  
> Please give one of the following recommendations:
> 
> - accept (possibly with revisions but need not be seen by a referee again)
> - revise (and referee again)
> - reject

## The report
> - A summary of the paper, stressing what in it is new and
>     interesting (or not!).
> - Your judgement of the overall quality of the paper.  Please
>     consider the following questions:
>   - Is the topic of the paper interesting, and in scope for JOT?
>   - Does the paper make a significant new contribution? Or is it a
>     good tutorial?
>   - Is the paper clearly written?
>   - Is the paper of an appropriate length?
> - General suggestions for improving the paper, including
>   suggestions about the overall approach or structure of the
>   paper, and for additional work that might be required. If you
>   are recommending acceptance, please clearly distinguish those
>   things that you judge must be done before publication from those
>   that you suggest might be done.
> - Detailed suggestions for improving the paper. Feel free to mark
>   small suggestions directly on the manuscript and return it to
>   us; we will pass it on to the author.
> 
> A wise man once gave the following advice: spend the most time
> refereeing the best papers. If a paper is awful, please don't spend a
> great deal of time on it. If a paper is good, please do spend a little
> time to make it better.

## Confidentiality
> The paper has has been submitted to JOT in confidence. Please do not
> otherwise cite the paper, or pass it on to others, except with the
> author's explicit agreement. You are welcome to consult your
> colleagues about your review, or invite a suitably-qualified colleague
> to do the review, but please remind them of the restrictions above.