Review Form for Submissions to KAW96

Please copy the form below for each of the papers you are refereeing, fill it in, and mail it to gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (KAW96 Review).

Reviews will be forwarded to the relevant KAW96 Track Chairs, and be anonymized, collated and returned to the authors.

                KAW96 Review Form Part 1

Submission #:
Authors: 
Title: 

Please rate the paper for the track chairs.


                Excellent                  Poor
Relevance        5       4      3       2      1       NA

                Excellent                  Poor
Depth            5       4      3       2      1       NA

                Excellent                  Poor
Originality      5       4      3       2      1       NA

                Excellent                  Poor
Importance       5       4      3       2      1       NA

                Results        Work-in-progress
Results          5       4      3       2      1       NA

                YES                           NO
Accept           5       4      3       2      1       Abstain

Comments for track chairs:



                KAW96 Review Form Part 2

Submission #:
Authors: 
Title: 

Please  include both positive and negative comments for authors in each  of
the five sections below.


Significance:  How  important  is the work reported?   Does  it  attack  an
important/difficult problem or a peripheral/simple one?  Does the  approach
offer an advance in the state of the art?


Originality:  Has this or similar work been previously reported?   Are  the
problems  and  approaches completely new?  Is this a novel  combination  of
familiar  techniques?  Does the paper discuss relevant research, or  is  it
reinventing the wheel using new terminology?


Quality:  Is  the paper technically sound?  Does it carefully evaluate  the
strengths  and  limitations  of  its  contribution?   Some  dimensions  for
evaluation  include  generality, empirical behavior, theoretical  analysis,
and psychological validity.


Clarity:  Does  the  paper describe the methods in  sufficient  detail  for
readers  to replicate the work?  Does it describe inputs, outputs, and  the
basic algorithms employed?  Is the paper well organized and well written?


General comments for the authors: What changes should be made?


Back to KAW Page