Instructions to Reviewers [1] You may make a recommendation for this paper using the following form, alternatively, write a detailed letter of recommendation to the author and include your recommendation to the associate editor. If you use this form, either edit it and return, or copy the relevant lines and send just those. [2] Your review should be emailed to the associate editor who asked you to review the article and with a cc to Kathleen.carley@cmu.edu and melissa.andersen@wkap.com . Confidential: Recommendation to Associate Editor Manuscript Number: Reviewer Number: Paper Title: [ ] Accept as is [ ] Accept with minor revisions [ ] Revise and resubmit, second review by outside reviewers not needed chance of acceptance is high [ ] Revise and resubmit as a research note chance of acceptance is high [ ] Revise and resubmit, second review by outside reviewers needed chance of acceptance is unable to be determined at this time [ ] Revise and resubmit only after substantial changes chance of acceptance is low [ ] Reject How original are the research ideas in this paper? [ ] Very original [ ] Mostly original [ ] Somewhat original [ ] Mostly unoriginal [ ] Not original Comments: How relevant is this research to the computational and mathematical organization theory audience? [ ] Very relevant [ ] Relevant [ ] Somewhat relevant [ ] Not very relevant [ ] Not at all relevant Comments: Potentially, how important is this paper’s contribution? [ ] Very important [ ] Important [ ] Somewhat important [ ] Not very important [ ] Not at all important Comments: How would you rate the quality of this paper? [ ] Excellent [ ] Very good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor Comments: To what extent does this paper fall within your area of expertise? [ ] Very well [ ] Adequately [ ] Very little How confident are you in your evaluation of this paper? [ ] Very confident [ ] Adequate [ ] Unsure Would you be willing to review this manuscript again? [ ] yes [ ] no Recommendation to the Author(s) Manuscript Number: Reviewer Number: Paper Title: What is the main contribution of this paper? Does this paper (check all that apply): [ ] present a computational model [ ] present a mathematical model [ ] present another type of formal model [ ] analyze the implications of a formal model [ ] test a formal model using experimental, field, or archival data [ ] present a method [ ] present new network data [ ] other - please specify If this paper presents or uses a formal model, then are the following model components described: inputs [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant outputs [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant internal mechanisms or processes [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant initial conditions [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant parameters [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant boundary conditions [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant limits to the model [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant Is the model well specified; i.e., could another researcher adapt this model or build on it based on this description? [ ] yes [ ] probably [ ] it would be difficult [ ] no If this paper presents or uses data (simulated or otherwise), then are the following described: source of data [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant variables [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant possible biases [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant limits of data set [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant How well are analysis methods described? [ ] well described [ ] adequate description [ ] poor description [ ] not described [ ] irrelevant Should other analysis methods been employed? [ ] Definitely [ ] Maybe [ ] These methods are fine [ ] Don’t know Comments: How well tied is this paper to the relevant literature? [ ] Excellently [ ] Very well [ ] Adequately [ ] Only cursorily [ ] Extremely poorly Comments: How well is the research presented? Clarity: [ ] Excellent [ ] Very good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor Organization: [ ] Excellent [ ] Very good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor Comments: Please write a note indicating your guidance on this article. Indicate strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Indicate what revisions are necessary or not necessary. If this is a computational or mathematical model indicate the sufficiency of the model presentation. If this paper tests a model remark on the sufficiency and validity of the test.