================================================================================ Peer Review Form CPE 580 "Intelligent Agents" Winter 2004 Organizers: Franz Kurfess, Cal Poly, USA (fkurfess@csc.calpoly.edu) Please post the completed form on the BlackBoard discussion forum in response to the paper submitted by the author. Deadline: Week 10 ================================================================================ 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? Does it provide enough background information, described in a reasonably impartial way, or is the background information biased towards the author's own views? * 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 clearly describe 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? Are opinion statements clearly distinguished from facts? ================================================================================ * Overall Recommendation [ ] Accept as is [ ] Accept with revisions (indicate revisions to be made below) [ ] Reject (explain the main reasons) * Publication [ ] Do you think that the paper (possibly in a revised or extended form) might be suitable for publication in a journal? If so, can you suggest a journal? ================================================================================ Comments for the authors: