================================================================================ Peer Review Form CSC 300 "Professional Responsibilities" Winter 2003 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: One week after the submission of the paper (which is due one week after the presentation) ================================================================================ 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 publication in a journal? ================================================================================ Comments for the authors: