REVIEW FORM
START Conference
Manager
DSN-PDS
2009:Performance and Dependability
Symposium at the InternationalConference on Dependable Systems and
Networks
Review
Form
Summary
Ranking
Please
evaluate the submission according to the criteriabelow.Scores for
numerical categories are ordered from "bad" to"good." That is,
a low score represents a negativeevaluation, and a high score
represents a positive
evaluation.
--
Presentation and
English(1-4)
1:
Unreadable 2: Major improvements needed 3: Minorissues4:
Good
Answer 1 if the
contribution is hard/impossible toevaluate due to poor readability.
Answer 2 if you think the paperneeds extensive changes to improve
English
andpresentation.
--
Relevance for
PDS(1-4)
1:
None 2: Minor 3: Adequate 4:
High
Answer 1 if thepaper does not haveany content
related to assessment of performance and/or dependability(including
security and timeliness). Answer 2 or 3 if performance ordependability
assessment has a role in the paper (minor or adequate,respectively, but
is not the main
focus.
--
Novelty
(1-4)
1:
Nothing new 2: Limited 3: Acceptable 4:
Great
Answer 1 if you
have seen the main ideas or resultsof thepaper published before (by
these authors or others). Answer 2 if thepaper provides a small
extension to current state of the
art.
For panel proposals,
tool demos, and practicalexperiencereports, novelty must be evaluated
in the context of the submissiontype. For example, an industrial case
study based on using awell-known algorithm in a real-world setting for
a real problem can beconsidered novel if nobody else has published such
an
experiment.
--
Contribution:
(1-4)
1:
Poor 2: Incremental 3: Acceptable 4:
Great
Note that
contribution may be theoretical,conceptual,practical, or some
combination of these. Answer 3 if you think thepaper makes a sufficient
contribution to be published in DSN. Answer 4if you think people in the
performance or dependability communitywould greatly benefit from
reading this
paper.
For
panel proposals, tool demos, and practicalexperiencereports, the
contribution must be evaluated in the context of thesubmission type.
For example, for a practical experience reportdescribing a real world
problem and a solution, the paper mayrepresent a contribution if the
problem is new for the dependabilityor performance community at large
even if the solution uses well-knowntechniques or the lessons learned
in solving the problem may providevaluable
insight.
--
Technical
correctness(1-3)
1:
Incorrect 2: Questionable 3:
Correct
Answer 1 if you
think the technical materialpresented inthe paper is factually
incorrect. Answer 2 if you have questions abouttechnical correctness
(e.g., the description does not convince you oris
unclear).
--
Reviewer expertise in the
area(1-4)
1:
Poor 2: Some familiarity 3: Good 4:
Expert
Answer 4 if you
currently work in this area and knowthelatest literature in the
specific domain of this paper, for example,you have written a paper on
this topic within the last year. Answer 3if you know the area well but
may not be up to date on the latestliterature. Answer 2 if you have
general familiarity with the area and1 if you have minimal familiarity
with the topic
area.
--
Confidence on the
review(1-3)
1:
Weak 2: Average 3:
Strong
Answer 1 if you
for some reason (lack of domainexpertise,rushed review, external
reviewer) do not feel very confident on yourreview. Answer 3 if you are
highly confident on
yourreview.
--
Overall recommendation
(1-6)
1:
Strong Reject 2: Reject 3: Weak Reject 4: WeakAccept5: Accept 6: Strong
Accept
Answer 3 if you
think the paper should be rejected,butare not willing to fight against
the paper and answer 4 if you thinkthe paper should be accepted but are
not willing to fight for thepaper. Answer 6 if you think the paper
could be one of the best papersin the conference (potential best paper
candidate).
Detailed
Comments
Please
supply detailed comments to back up your rankings.Thesecomments will be
forwarded to the authors of the paper. The commentswill help the
committee decide the outcome of the paper, and will helpjustify this
decision for the authors. Moreover, if the paper isaccepted, the
comments should guide the authors in making revisionsfor a final
manuscript. Hence, the more detailed you make yourcomments, the more
useful your review will be - both for the committeeand for the
authors.
Enter comments
here:
Confidential
CommentsforCommittee
You
may wish to withhold some comments from the authors, andinclude them
solely for the committee's internal use. For example, youmay want to
express a very strong (negative) opinion on the paper,which might
offend the authors in some way. Or, perhaps you wish towrite something
which would expose your identity to the authors. Ifyou wish to share
comments of this nature with the committee, this isthe place to put
them.
STARTConference Manager (V2.56.8- Rev.
421)
|