REVIEW DUE DATE: 2012-6-25 (25th of June!) NAME OF REVIEWER: AUTHOR(S): TITLE: (See below for explanations!) A: Summary: B: Strengths: C: Weaknesses: D1-expertise : D2-judgment : D3-soundness : D4-coverage : D5-depth : D6-organization: D7-literary : D8-explaining : E. Comments for the Authors --------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the fields: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your comments will be used to assist the author in refinement of the manuscript (if he or she wants to). Your identity will be held confidential. A. Please summarize BRIEFLY, in your own words, the content of the paper. B. Please summarize the particular strengths of the paper. Emphasize what you liked about the paper, where you benefitted from it. C. Please summarize the particular weaknesses of the paper. Emphasize where you think the paper can be improved. (Be brief here, there is room for detailed comments below.) D. Please answer the following questions on the given scale: 1. Your expertise/confidence in the evaluation (0-3): 0: do not know anything the topic of the paper 1: know little about this area 2: moderate knowledge 3: know the area quite well 2. Overall Judgment of the paper (0-10): 0: absolute nonsense; a waste of time and an insult 1: rubbish 2: bad paper 3: unsatisfactory paper 4: questionable 5: barely acceptable 6: acceptable 7: good paper 8: very good paper 9: outstanding, landmark paper 10: Send it off to Stockholm for Nobel prize consideration 3. Is the paper technically sound? (0..10): 0: does not make sense at all, claims that 1+1=1 5: some claims are questionable, yet seem to be correct 10: not a single mistake (as far as I can tell) 4.Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced? (0..10): 0: No content whatsoever 2.5: Important information is missing or superficially treated. 5: Certain parts significantly overstressed. 7.5: Treatment somewhat unbalanced, but not seriously so. 10: Yes 5. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper? (0..10): 0: Superficial, suitable for "Bild"-Zeitung or similar 5: Does provide some detailed explanation, but stays superficial at other parts 10: Goes to minute details, explains every little odds and ends aspect; almost a standards document or an implementation description 6. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper? 0: Poor 5: Satisfactory, could be improved 10: Perfect 7. How do you rate the English (or German) usage and the "literary" presentation of the paper? How clear and easy to understand is the paper? (0..10): 0: Poor 5: Mostly Accessible 10: Totally Accessible 8. Does the paper do a good job in explaining a problem, motivate why the problem is important, explain what options there are to approach the problem, etc.? How good are motivation and introduction in the paper? (0..10): 0: Everything remained a complete mystery to me. 5: I can see that somebody might consider that stuff important; I am not one of them. 10: This is world's most pressing problem E. Comments for the Authors Please state why you rated the paper as you did. If you think that revisions are required, please give the author specific guidance regarding those revision, differentiating between optional and mandatory changes. The more you write here, the more you are helping your fellow students. But keep in mind that high-level comments are much more helpful, concentrate on comments like "line of argument breaks down in Section 5.3 because..." rather than "computer is misspelled on page 4". Please send the completed form to your advisor.