From nieh@disco.cs.columbia.edu Thu Jan 27 11:25 EST 2000
Received: from disco.cs.columbia.edu (disco.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.16.7])
	by ober.cs.columbia.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14798
	for <schou@ober.cs.columbia.edu>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:25:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from nieh@localhost)
	by disco.cs.columbia.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA04882;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:25:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:25:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200001271625.LAA04882@disco.cs.columbia.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: disco.cs.columbia.edu: nieh set sender to nieh@disco.cs.columbia.edu using -f
From: "Jason Nieh" <nieh@opus.cs.columbia.edu>
Sender: nieh@opus.cs.columbia.edu
To: schou@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: review form
Reply-to: nieh@opus.cs.columbia.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2369
Status: OR


In writing your reviews, you should fill in the following fields and
submit the following form in ascii format to the TA.  Be sure to use
the fields below exactly as they are written here. 

Name:		      
Email:
PaperTitle:
PaperAuthors:
Score-Originality:	
Score-Readability:	
Score-Technical:	
Score-Confidence:	
Score-Overall:	
PaperSummary:
PaperPros:		
PaperCons:		
PaperQuestions:		
Comments:		

All scores are out of 1-5, with 5 best, 1 worst.  Further explanation
of the fields is as follows:

Name:		      your name (ie John Doe)

Email:		      your full email address (ie foobar@cs.columbia.edu)

PaperTitle:	      the title of the paper you are reviewing

PaperAuthors:	      authors of the paper you are reviewing

Score-Originality:    is it an original / good idea?  you should
		      evaluate this taking into account the date of
		      publication of the paper (ie the concept of
		      virtual memory was a novel idea 30 years ago but
		      not today).  rate it 1-5.

Score-Readability:    is the paper well written?  rate it 1-5.

Score-Technical:      is the paper technically sound?  rate it 1-5.

Score-Confidence:     how confident are you in your review?  for
		      instance, if it is a file systems paper and you
		      know your file systems cold, you would give a 5
		      rating.  don't pretend to know more than you do.

Score-Overall:	      overall rating for the paper - rate it 1-5.

PaperSummary:	      give a summary of the paper - no critique, just
		      what is the problem addressed, what is the main
		      idea of the solution, how do they justify their
		      solution is a good one (measure real system,
		      simulation, microbenchmarks, etc.)

PaperPros:	      what are the strengths of the paper, especially
		      from a technical standpoint?

PaperCons:	      what did you think was bad about the paper and how
		      could it be made better?  don't just criticize,
		      but make concrete suggestions on how the paper
		      could be improved.

PaperQuestions:	      what questions did you have about the paper?
		      was there something that was assumed but not
		      stated?  was there something you didn't
		      understand?  you should have at least 1 or 2
		      questions.  if you don't, you probably didn't
		      read the paper carefully.

Comments:	      make additional comments here.