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)