ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KateGleasonCollege of Engineering
Multi-Disciplinary Senior Design – Technical Paper Review
Review Completed by: ______
Please rate each paper, using the performance categories scale given below, on each attribute listed. In each comment section, please make note of specific errors, shortcomings, or comments that would help the authors improve their presentation with a subsequent revision.The target audience for the technical conference presentation is an audience of engineering professionals similar to that whom would read an engineering journal, trade publication, or conference proceedings. Please provide additional comments on the back of this form.
Please rate the paper by placing one “X” for each category: Place one “X” as your suggestion:
Category / Unsatisfactory / Needs Improvement / Satisfactory / Very Good / Outstanding / Publish as a full paperTechnical Contents / Publish after a minor revision
Importance to the Field / Publish after a major revision
Conciseness / Decline to publish
Style/Clarity
Completeness
Application Readiness
Originality
Project Name/Number : ______
Performance Categories:____1______2______3______4______5 ______
Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Very Good Outstanding
Attribute
/ Rating- Written Communication:Consider the accuracy, thoroughness, and overall quality of the technical paper. Did this paper adequately convey the work completed by the design team? Was the paper prepared with professional quality graphics? Was the paper free from grammatical, typographical, and spelling errors? Was the technical information presented on the paper correct? Consider the accuracy, thoroughness, and overall quality of theTECHNICAL PAPER.
______
______
- Quantity of work: Did the team effectively make use of the conference paper format to present a thorough overview of their design project?
______
______
- Identification of design project/customer needs: Did the team present a clear summary of their needs assessment activities (e.g., customer visits, background research, benchmarking, contracting)
______
______
- Design objectives and performance specifications: Did the team clearly present their project objectives and performance specifications against which they were to be evaluated? (e.g., well-defined list of deliverables, identification and understanding of discipline-specific design codes and guides, definition of quantified performance/evaluation criteria)
______
______
- Final Design: Did the team demonstrate, through the technical paper, an overview of their design, so that the reviewer could understand how they solved the problem, what the final design consisted of, how it was made, what prototype or engineering model was delivered, that they considered applicable engineering standards, and realistic constraints (e.g., economic, environmental, sustainability, manufacturability, ethical, health/safety, social, political) as they developed their design?
______
______
- Understanding of their design: Did the team demonstrate, through their references and citations, that their results and conclusions were based on factual information either developed or learned during the course of their design project? Did the team avoid expressing opinions not based in fact?
______
- Consideration/incorporation of engineering standards and realistic constraints: Did the team demonstrate, through the technical paper, that they considered applicable engineering standards, and realistic constraints (e.g., economic, environmental, sustainability, manufacturability, ethical, health/safety, social, political) as they developed their design?
______
- Application of math, science, and engineering principles to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problem using appropriate techniques and modern engineering tools: Did the team demonstrate, through the technical paper, that they applied basic (or advanced) principles of math and science to solve the problem, and employ modern tools in their analyses as they developed the design? Were the equations and analyses performed correct?
______
- Application of engineering principles appropriate to each discipline: Did the team demonstrate, through the technical paper, that they used the appropriate tools from each applicable discipline in the solution of their design project? For example; EE: Modeling of key circuits, schematic diagrams, interface considerations, software flowcharts, worst case analysis; ISE: e.g., customer needs/product specs (benchmarking, QFD), process flow, economic analyses, statistical analyses, ergonomic/health/safety analyses, mathematical/ simulation modeling; project/process management; ME: Engineering Analysis - stress analysis, material selection, G.D.&T., CAD, FEA, DFM). Were the principle applied correctly?
______
- Their ability to design a system to meet desired needs: Did the team present a thorough and accurate self-assessment of their performance against the design objectives and performance specifications? Did they evaluate their final design and address its performance relative to the original objectives and specifications? Regardless of whether the team MET their objectives, were they clear in understanding where any shortfalls were, and how they would be mitigated if the team continued work?
______
- Their ability to communicate effectively through written, oral, and graphical means: Did the team demonstrate writing competency, proof-read their work, have a well-organized presentation, employ a consistent writing style with proper grammar, and utilize professional quality drawings, charts and graphs, etc.?
______
Please feel free to provide any additional comments here: