This document details the official review criteria for the Open Neuromorphic Research (ONR) program. It is to be used by both submitters preparing their work and reviewers evaluating submissions.
Core Principles
Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following principles, inspired by the broader open science movement:
- I will sign my name to my review. (Transparency)
- I will review with integrity. (Objectivity)
- I will treat the review as a discourse… and provide constructive criticism. (Constructiveness)
- I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science. (Advocacy)
Evaluation Rubric
| Category | Criteria | Reviewer Questions |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Relevance | Submission is within the scope of neuromorphic computing (hardware, software, methods, applications). | Does this fit the ONR mission? |
| 2. Clarity | Well-organized, readable, and logically structured. | Is the purpose clear? Are visuals and code well-explained? |
| 3. Reproducibility | Methods, code, and data are clearly documented for replication. | Could another researcher replicate the results with the materials provided? |
| 4. Technical Rigor | The approach is technically sound and well-supported. | Does the submission reflect good scientific/engineering practices? |
| 5. Contribution | Demonstrates a non-trivial or novel contribution (tool, method, experiment, or insight). | Is the contribution clearly articulated and meaningful? |
| 6. Openness | Uses permissive licensing (e.g., MIT, Apache, CC-BY) and open tools/formats. | Are all components accessible and reusable under our Definition of Open? |
| 7. Compliance | Adheres to ONR submission guidelines. | Are the format, structure, and metadata correct? |
| 8. Community Value | Has potential to be reused, extended, or learned from by the ONM community. | Would this benefit students, researchers, or developers? |
Reviewer Recommendation
- Accept: The submission meets the criteria and is ready for the “ONM Community Approved” badge.
- Recommend Modifications: The submission is promising but requires specific, actionable changes before it can be accepted.
Reviewer Comments
Please provide brief, constructive feedback addressing:
- Strengths of the submission.
- Suggestions for improvement.
- Specific concerns related to clarity, rigor, or reproducibility.