Reviewer Name:

Paper Title:

Authors:


1. Short summary of the paper (in your own words)

2. What are the major contributions of the paper?


ORGANIZATION / PRESENTATION

1. Do the title and abstract provide a clear, accurate indication of
   the material presented?
   
2. Does the paper provide clear motivation for the problem and the 
   proposed solution or approach?
   
3. Is there sufficient background material appropriate for the
   target audience?
   
4. Can the structural organization of the paper be improved?

5. Can the literary style of the paper be improved?

6. Are the descriptions, definitions, examples, figures, and tables 
   adequate and clearly presented? Do they aid the understanding of
   the problem and the proposed solutions?
   

CONTENT

1. Is the paper technically sound? Is the technical depth of the 
   paper adequate?
   
2. Does the paper contain novel and original solutions, approaches,
   experiments, or insights?
   
3. Does the paper represent a significant contribution in this area
   of research?
   
4. Are the claims and arguments clearly presented and justified?

5. Are the proposed solutions, approaches, and claims properly and 
   adequately evaluated?
   
6. Have the primary results and conclusions been adequately and
   convincingly assessed or verified?
   
7. Does the paper provide sufficient review of literature and prior
   work related to the problem? Has the proposed approach/solution
   been clearly placed in the context of prior work?
   
8. Has the author clearly expressed the limitations of the research
   and the approach?

9. Does the paper provide sufficient discussion of the implications
   the research and subsequent or future work?
   

EVALUATION SUMMARY

1. Provide a rating from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for each of the
   following categories:

   - Technical Quality and Soundness
   - Originality and Novelty
   - Significance of Results
   - Rigor of Arguments
   - Clarity of Presentation
   - Organization
   - Literary Style
   - References and Background Information

2. Provide a short summary of the positive and negative aspects of 
   paper.
   
3. Your overall evaluation of the paper (select one):

   o strong reject (paper is seriously deficient in important areas)
   o reject (paper is not of sufficient quality to warrant publication)
   o revise (paper is in need of significant improvements and revisions)
   o accept (paper has no major flaws; some revisions may be necessary)
   o strong accept (paper is of highest quality; little change is necessary)


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Provide any additional comments, suggestions, or corrections that
you feel the authors should address in a revision of their paper.