================================================================================ Peer Review Form CSC/CPE 486/581 Spring 2009 Organizers: Franz Kurfess, Cal Poly, USA (fkurfess@csc.calpoly.edu) Please use this template to provide feedback to the authors of the respective paper. The template is based on one used for an actual conference a few years ago; many of the aspects addressed are common to such templates for academic publications. This is conducted as an "open" review, where the identities of authors and reviewers are revealed. Many conferences and publications use "blind" reviews, where the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author, or "double-blind" reviews, where the reviewers also don't know the identity of the authors. Please post the completed form on the BlackBoard wiki. Create a new page, copy and paste this form, and then put a link in the "Reviewer" column of the overview table pointing to the newly created page. Deadline: One week after the submission of the paper proposal, draft, or final version ================================================================================ Reviewer: Author: Title of Paper: ================================================================================ Rate the following items on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best. Provide explanations for each category, and general comments at the end. ================================================================================ * Relevance [ ] Is the paper closely related to the topic of the class? Is the content interesting enough to the audience? Is the paper understandable only by experts, or also by interested people from other fields? * Significance [ ] How important is the work reported? Does it tackle an important/difficult problem (as opposed to a peripheral/simple one)? Does the approach taken advance the state of the art? Does it involve or synthesize known ideas, methods, or approaches? Does it have interesting implications for multiple disciplines? * Originality [ ] Is this a new issue? Is this a novel approach to an issue? Is this a novel combination of familiar ideas/techniques/methods/approaches? Does the paper point out differences from related research? Does the paper properly situate itself with respect to previous work? * Quality [ ] Is the paper technically sound? How are its claims backed up? Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contribution? * Clarity [ ] Is the paper clearly written? Does it motivate the research? Does it describe clearly the methods employed (e.g., experimental procedures, algorithms, analytical tools), if any? Are the results, if any, described and evaluated thoroughly? Is the paper organized in a sensible and logical fashion? ================================================================================ * Overall Recommendation [ ] Accept as is [ ] Accept with revisions [ ] Reject * Publication [ ] Do you think that the paper (possibly in a revised or extended form) might be suitable for submission to a conference or workship, or for publication in a journal (e.g. ACM Crossroads)? ================================================================================ Comments for the authors: