The paper you are reading is the hard work of the author.
Please keep this in mind as you do your review.
Assess the paper to the best of your ability but take care to
give constructive feedback.
Basic information
Reviewer name:
Paper title:
Paper author:
Summary in a few sentences, in the reviewer's words, of what this paper is about.
Summary of the main strengths of the paper
Summary of the main weaknesses of the paper
Scholarship
(1=no citations,
3=huge gaps,
5=ignorant of a major relevant piece of work,
8=good but missing a few references,
10=clear specification of relation to rest of field):
Score:
Feedback (eg references to recommend):
Clarity
(1=unreadable,
3=significant problems with exposition,
5=some problems with grammar or structure,
8=basically okay, 10=beautifully clear):
Feedback on what is good about the presentation:
Feedback on what can be improved to make the presentation better:
Novelty
(1=same thing has been done before,
3=very similar to existing work,
5=a direct extension of existing work,
8=major step in a previously existing direction,
10=surprisingly new model, approach, or result):
Score:
Feedback on what is novel and how well this is conveyed:
Recommendations for improvements in novelty and communication of it
Soundness and technical quality
(1=technically incoherent with no validation;
3=major mistakes, weak experiments, theorems false;
5=experiments not well designed, minor theoretical problems;
8=basically okay;
10=beautiful formalization and proof, or exceptionally good experimental methods):
Score:
Feedback on the strengths:
Feedback on aspects that should be strengthed and how to do it:
Significance and impact
(1=no-one will ever read this work;
3=no-one will ever cite this work;
5= this work will moderately influence researchers close to the area;
8=this work will moderately influence a wide community of researchers, or have a large influence on a smaller community;
10=this work will change the world):
Score:
Feedback on strengths:
Feedbackon aspects that should be strengthed and how to do it:
Overall recommendation - omit
(1=You have to reject it!;
3=Probably should be rejected;
5/6=Borderline;
8=Probably should be accepted;
10=You have to accept it!):
Reviewer familiarity - omit
(1=I really have no idea;
3=It's far from my expertise, but I can judge from a generalist's perspective;
5=I'm moderately familiar with this area;
8=I'm very familiar with this area;
10=This is one of my main research areas):
Additional assessment on elements of the paper.
Does the title of this paper clearly and sufficiently reflect its contents?
yes/no.
If appropriate, suggest improvements.
Can you suggest additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper?
Please specify.
Can you suggest any reductions in the paper,
or deletions of parts?
Please specify.
Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?
Please be specific.
It is generally easier to understand a general or abstract idea if
there are good illustrative concrete examples.
Does this paper do this well?
Are the key words and abstracts/summary informative?
Please explain.