PEER REVIEWING FORM

INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS:

Make a copy of this form and insert your typewritten comments
in place of the questions below.

Turn in two printed copies of your review. One copy should include your name
and will be retained by the instructor. The other copy should NOT include
your name and will be returned to the author for consideration.

REVIEWER'S NAME:

TITLE OF PAPER:

SUMMARY
In one solid paragraph, summarize the contributions of this paper.
This serves to demonstrate that the reviewer actually read and understood the paper.
It also helps the author to see what points attract the reader's attention.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Does the author lay out a clear and convincing rationale for the work?
- If not, how could be rationale be improved?
Is the introduction accessible to a non-expert?
- If not, what needs to be elaborated to assist the non-expert?
Is the key novel contribution of this paper clearly articulated?
- If not, what should be clarified?

TECHNICAL CONTENT
Is the system or algorithm clearly described in significant detail?
- If not, what needs to be added or clarified?
Does the system or actually accomplish what the authors claim?
- If not, exactly what is wrong?
Have the authors considered all of the aspects of their work?
- If not, what is missing?  (i.e. performance, fault-tolerance, usability...)
What evidence is given that the system is built and works?
- If none, what could be given?

EVALUTION
What measurements have the authors made?
What conclusions have they drawn?
Does the evaluation back up claims made earlier in the paper?
- If not, what must be done to rectify the evaluation?

COMMUNICATION
Does the paper contain appropriate and detailed diagrams?
Is the organization of the paper suitable?
- If not, suggest how it could be re-arranged.
Are technical concepts explained clearly and accurately?
- If not, suggest how they may be improved.
Is the paper carefully proofread and spell-checked?
- If not, point out a few places that need attention.