CSE598D - Fall 2010 Paper Review

Authors:
Paper Title:

Reviewer:
Date:
Review: ( ) one
        ( ) two

** Technical Merit:

  [ ] No technical merit
  [ ] Obvious flaws
  [ ] Good/minor flaws
  [ ] Outstanding
  
** Novelty:

  [ ] Published before
  [ ] Very incremental
  [ ] Incremental
  [ ] Novel
  [ ] This paper will surprise the community

** Experimental/Analytical Methodology

  [ ] Inappropriate or incorrectly applied
  [ ] Poor
  [ ] Reasonable
  [ ] Well performed
  [ ] Outstanding

** Presentation

  [ ] Unreadable, uninteligible, or incomplete
  [ ] Difficult to understand or sloppy
  [ ] Marginal
  [ ] Well constructed
  [ ] Outstanding
  
** Reviewer Expertise:

  [ ] No familiarity
  [ ] Some familiarity
  [ ] Knowledgeable
  [ ] Expert

** Recommendation:

  [ ] Reject
  [ ] Weak reject
  [ ] Weak accept
  [ ] Accept 
  [ ] String accept

** Paper Summary:

** Paper Strengths:

** Paper Weaknesses:

** Comments for Author:

** Comments for the professor: (not given to student)