This document list the questions that the reviewers of the submitted papers are asked to answer in their review report. Reviews are only shown to the authors of the papers. The identity of the reviewes is kept secret. The identity of the authors, however, is not.

1. General

• How relevant is your judgment?
• very - this is close to my field of research.
• quite - I follow the advances in the field.
• average - quite familiar with some topics, not so familiar with others.
• irrelevant - please assign to someone else.
• In a phrase, what is the substance of the paper?
• Is this work different from other previous or parallel efforts? If so, how?
• Is the English language correct and concise?
• Is the paper well organized? How can its organization be improved?
• Are the illustrations clear; do they support the paper.
• What is your recommendation to the editors?
• accept as is,
• requires minor revisions but does not need for another review,
• requires major revision and another review,
• reject.
• What are your recommendations to the author?

2. Related to the introduction

• Does the summary summarize or does it introduce the paper?
• Is the introduction repetitive with other similar efforts?
• Are the related or parallel efforts referenced?
• Is the problem well described?

3. Related to the core

• Do the authors explain the original aspects of their work?
• Are the criteria for the design or implementation clear?
• If it is an implementation, do the authors describe the platforms, libraries, and other environment that are essential for the implementation?
• Are the examples explained and clear?
• Can the success or failure of the effort be assessed?

4. Related to the conclusions

• Are the conclusions clear and conclusive. Are they supported in the paper?
• Do the authors succeed in proving the original hypothesis?
• Is there an objective discussion of the research results?

March 30, 2005