Reviewer Instructions

As an IP&M reviewer, your objective is to evaluate the merits and presentation of the research presented in this submission.

Submissions should employ appropriate methods and data that substantiates the conclusions and interpretations of the research findings.

These research findings should be novel and not too similar to already published findings, reporting a breakthrough or at least advancement in the field.

Submissions with serious flaws of technical rigor and/or lack of research novelty are generally candidates for rejection.

For your initial review, please comment explicitly on the following, if appropriate:

• If the importance and impact of the research problem or aim is not clearly stated, please highlight the need for the authors to address.

• If the theoretical/practical foundations of the research are not clearly stated, please highlight the need for the authors to do so.

• If the justification for the method(s) employed is not clearly stated or is lacking, please highlight the need for the authors to address.

• If the justification for the dataset(s) employed is not clearly stated or is lacking, please highlight the need for the authors to address.

• If the size of the dataset(s) is not adequate relative to the research aims, please highlight this as a shortcoming for the authors to address.

• If the findings are not compared to a baseline/gold standard/findings from prior literature or the comparison is not adequate relative to the research aims and prior art in the field, please highlight this as a shortcoming for the authors to address.

• If the implications of the research (e.g., theoretical and/or practical) are not clearly stated not, please highlight the need for the authors to address.

• If the implications of the research (e.g., theoretical and/or practical) are not supported by the findings, highlight these discrepancies for the authors to address.

• If there are issues with the overall structure of the manuscript (i.e., prior works, research, findings, and discussion), please highlight issues with the structure for the authors to address.