CS846 Paper Review Form - Winter 2012 Reviewer: Paper Title: Author(s): 1) Is the paper technically correct? [ ] Yes [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid) [ ] No 2) Originality [ ] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work) [ ] Good [ ] Marginal (very incremental) [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new) 3) Technical Depth [ ] Very good (comparable to best conference papers) [ ] Good (comparable to typical conference papers) [ ] Marginal depth [ ] Little or no depth 4) Impact/Significance [ ] Very significant [ ] Significant [ ] Marginal significance. [ ] Little or no significance. 5) Presentation [ ] Very well written [ ] Generally well written [ ] Readable [ ] Needs considerable work [ ] Unacceptably bad 6) Overall Rating [ ] Strong accept (award quality) [ ] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance) [ ] Weak Accept (borderline, but lean towards acceptance) [ ] Weak Reject (not sure why this paper was published) 7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs) 8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper. (1-2 sentences each, identified as S1, S2, S3.) 9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each, identified as W1, W2, W3.)