Dear Dr. Lehar:
I transmit two reviews of your two manuscripts "Computational Implications of Gestalt Theory I and II" submitted to Perception & Psychophysics. I am sorry to say that both reviewers recommend that your papers be rejected. Parallel criticisms are made by the two reviewers: (1) Your manuscripts are " ... unnecessarily long ..." (Rev A) and have "too much unnecessary detail" (Rev B).
(2) "The model ... is not adequately tested to demonstrate that it successfully accounts for ... illusory contours" (Rev A). "There are numerous assertions that are not based on data. ... In evaluating any model one must consider how well it accounts for existing research ..." (Rev B).
(3) "The paper claims originality for the 'perceptual modeling approach'. In fact, this approach is well known and widely used" (Rev A). "... I found it hard to tell what predictions this model would make that were different from other models" (Rev B).
(4) "The papers inadequately reference the recent extensive literature on ... illusory contours. No published literature since 1992 is referenced at all" (Rev A). "In both manuscripts the small number of citations and lack of references to related empirical research suggest that the development of this model was constrained (by) few phenomena" (Rev B).
Given these serious concerns, I cannot accept the manuscript as submitted. If you choose to submit a revised version of your manuscript, it will be treated as a new manuscript. Reviewer B has helpful suggestions for revisions throughout the review. This reviewer ends with an overall recommendation that any new manuscript "... should be shorter ... and should include clear comparisons between the new model and existing models."
Carol M. Cicerone email@example.com