TITLE:
AUTHOR:
REVIEWER:
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW:
Please provide a detailed review, including justification for your scores. This review will be given to the
author.
Summary:
Contributions:
Limitations:
*** QUATITTATIVE EVALUATION
OVERALL SCORE:
--- 3 (strong accept)
--- 2 (accept)
--- 1 (weak accept)
--- 0 (borderline paper)
--- -1 (weak reject)
--- -2 (reject)
--- -3 (strong reject)
*** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:
--- 4 (expert)
--- 3 (high)
--- 2 (medium)
--- 1 (low)
--- 0 (null)
*** PAPER CATEGORIZATION:
--- 5 (Highly theoretical)
--- 4 (Tends towards theoretical)
--- 3 (Balanced theory and practice)
--- 2 (Tends toward practical)
--- 1 (Highly practical)
*** PRESENTATION:
--- 5 (excellent)
--- 4 (good)
--- 3 (fair)
--- 2 (poor)
--- 1 (very poor)
*** RELEVANCE TO THA CLASS:
--- 5 (excellent)
--- 4 (good)
--- 3 (fair)
--- 2 (poor)
--- 1 (very poor)
*** OVERALL VALUE ADDED TO THE FIELD OF STUDY:
--- 6 (New information)
--- 5 (Valuable confirmation of present knowledge)
--- 4 (Clarity to present understanding)
--- 3 (New perspective, issue, or problem definition)
--- 2 (Not much)
--- 1 (Other)
*** HOW CAREFULLY HAVE YOU READ THIS PAPER?:
--- 5 (excellent)
--- 4 (good)
--- 3 (fair)
--- 2 (poor)
--- 1 (very poor)
*** CONSIDER FOR PUBLICATION/THESES/DISSERTATION TOPIC:
--- 3 (Maybe)
--- 2 (No)
--- 1 (Yes)
*** LENGTH OF THE PAPER: from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest)
--- 4 (Very short)
--- 3 (fair)
--- 2 (poor)
--- 1 (not appropriate (very long))
*** BEST PAPER CANDIDATE:
--- 3 (Maybe)
--- 2 (No)
--- 1 (Yes)