-------------------------------------------------------------- --- When filling out the review form please have in mind --- the following rules: --- (1) Lines starting with --- are comments. The system will --- ignore them. Do not start lines in your review with --- --- as they will be ignored. You can add comments to the --- review form or remove them --- (2) Lines starting with *** are used by the system. Do not --- remove or modify these lines. -------------------------------------------------------------- *** TITLE: *** AUTHORS: *** REVIEWER: -------------------------------------------------------------- *** REVIEW: --- Please provide a detailed review, including justification for --- your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless --- the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required. --- BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PAPER --- Please provide an informative precis of the content of the paper for --- the use of the Programme Chairs. --- NOTE: Your comments in areas A-E below should reflect the numeric --- ratings your give under the same headings later in the review template. --- A: RELEVANCE TO COMPUTER NETWORKING RESEARCH --- Explain how and why the paper is relevant to Computer Networking Research. --- B: CONTEXTUALIZATION OF CONTRIBUTION: --- This part of the review evaluates the demonstrated --- knowledge of related work and discussion of relevance --- of the paper's contribution in the context of the prior literature --- in the field and other relevant areas. Please include suggestions --- of missing literature (in the form of bibliography entries) in --- cases where authors receive a low rating in this area. --- C: RESEARCH METHOD AND RESULTS: --- Evaluate whether the paper is methodologically strong, --- how is it grounded in related work, what is the quality of --- its theoretical foundation, and analysis/discussion. --- --- NOTE: The application of scoring here varies for the submission --- categories. --- --- RESEARCH AND SYSTEMS papers should position the system in --- relation to related and prior work, showing the need for a new --- or enhanced approach. A high rating in this evaluation category --- indicates that a paper has a sound theoretical and --- empirical structure in terms of identification of the problem, --- design of solution/investigation and methods for data collection. --- The analysis of the results should be a good example of the chosen --- study approach and demonstrate appropriate rigour and reflective --- depth when developing and discussing the implications of the --- findings. --- --- DISCUSSION papers should demonstrate a strong knowledge of --- related and prior work. They should introduce new ideas and --- inspire to a discourse that has the potential to advance the field --- in some way. An example of what we mean by a high impact --- discussion paper is Dijkstra's paper --- "Go To Statement Considered Harmful", in CACM, 1968.: --- D: SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF CONTRIBUTION: --- Summarise in what ways this paper is important and makes a --- contribution to the development of Computer Networking. --- E: LANGUAGE AND EXPRESSION: --- Please assess the language and English expression in the paper --- with reference to the International scholarly standard for publications. -------------------------------------------------------------- *** REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: --- If you wish to add any remarks for PC members, please write --- them below. These remarks will only be used during the PC --- meeting. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is --- optional. -------------------------------------------------------------- --- In the evaluations below, uncomment the line with your --- evaluation or confidence. You can also remove the --- irrelevant lines *** OVERALL EVALUATION: --- 2 (strong accept) --- 1 (weak accept) --- 0 (borderline paper) --- -1 (weak reject) --- -2 (strong reject) *** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: --- 4 (expert) --- 3 (high) --- 2 (medium) --- 1 (low) --- 0 (null) *** A: RELEVANCE TO COMPUTER NETWORKING RESEARCH: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (Highly relevant) --- 4 (Clearly appropriate and well focused) --- 3 (Appropriate and reasonably focused) --- 2 (Somewhat relevant, but not focused) --- 1 (Not really relevant) *** B: CONTEXTUALIZATION OF CONTRIBUTION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (Excellent knowledge of related work and discussion of relevance of the paper's contribution) --- 4 (Good overview of related work and discussion of the paper's relevance) --- 3 (References to related work, some discussion of the paper's contribution) --- 2 (Some references and/or discussion of the relevance of the paper's contribution) --- 1 (Little or no reference to related work or discussion of the paper's contribution) *** C: RESEARCH METHOD AND RESULTS: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (The research is methodologically strong, theoretical foundation is good, and analysis/discussion are of high quality) --- 4 (Relevant theory and method are applied with some limitations) --- 3 (The paper uses theory and analysis methods though details are unclear in places) --- 2 (Theoretical underpinnings are weak and there are flaws in argument/analysis) --- 1 (The research appears to be poorly structured and the analysis/argument is hard to interpret) *** D: NATURE OF CONTRIBUTION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (Highly original, thought provoking and novel.) --- 4 (Important and worthwhile new work) --- 3 (Some originality and of interest to the audience) --- 2 (Some interesting points) --- 1 (Very limited interest) *** E: LANGUAGE AND EXPRESSION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (Excellent, exemplary writing enhancing the quality of the paper) --- 4 (Good, appropriate for publication as is) --- 3 (Reasonable, may need some revision to be publishable) --- 2 (Poorly written, unlikely that it can be improved enough) --- 1 (Extremely poorly written; very hard to understand) *** END