• WELCOME
• FINAL PROGRAM
• REGISTRATION
• VENUE
• ACCOMMODATION
• SOCIAL PROGRAM
• TRAVEL INFORMATION
• STUDENT TRAVEL GRANTS
• SPONSORS AND CONTRIBUTORS
• ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
• PREVIOUS CONFERENCES
• SUBMISSIONS
  • DSN 2009 FLYER
  • FAST ABSTRACTS
  • STUDENT FORUM
  • BIRDS OF A FEATHER
  • DCCS SYMPOSIUM
  • PDS SYMPOSIUM
    • CALL FOR PAPERS
    • INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS
    • PAPERS SUBMISSION (CLOSED)
    • REVIEW FORM
  • WORKSHOPS CALL FOR PAPERS (CLOSED)
  • TUTORIAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (CLOSED)
  • WORKSHOP PROPOSALS SUBMISSION (CLOSED)

REVIEW FORM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).