CSCI 5535: Fundamentals of Programming Languages
Paper Review Form

Submission: (Title of Paper)
Author: (Author's Name)

*Reviewer*: (Your Name)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Directions

Use this form to evaluate and comment on this submission.  Your review
will consist of three parts: a brief summary, ratings, and detailed
comments that back up your ratings.  The author will receive your
comments anonymously (i.e., your name will be removed).  If there are
certain comments you would like to convey to the instructor but do not
wish to send to the author, please include them in the "confidential
comments" section.

After you have completed this form, rename the file as follows:

  <author's last name>-<your last name>-review.txt

For example, if the author's name is Edsger Dijkstra and your name is
Tony Hoare, then rename the file "dijkstra-hoare-review.txt".  Then,
upload your review to the moodle.

Most papers will not represent finished products but rather good
starts to interesting projects.  Try to make your comments as
constructive as possible to help your peers improve their work.

Note that this review form is modeled after ones used at peer-reviewed
research conferences.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Summary

Please give a brief, 2-3 sentence summary of the main ideas of the paper:

What is the strength of the paper? (1-3 sentences):

What is the weakness of the paper? (1-3 sentences):

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ratings

The project grade will be assigned separately from these ratings.  As
stated before, the project grade will be based on whether sufficient
work has been put into the project and not necessarily whether novel
results have been obtained.

Overall Evaluation
    A:	Excellent paper. I'd really want to see this work pursued further.
    B:	Good paper. I think the work is a solid course project.
    C:	Weak paper, though the work is sufficient for a course project.
    D:	Serious problems. This paper does not satisfactory demonstrate
        sufficient effort on the course project.

Convincing
    A:	Totally convincing. The paper presents bullet-proof evidence (argument,
        proof, or data) to demonstrate its main points.
    B:	Typical. The evidence is not bullet-proof but is reasonable.
    C:	Weak. The paper presents weak evidence to demonstrate its main points.
    D:	Inadequate. I don't believe the main points in the paper.
	 
Worth solving
    A:	Critical. The paper is in an area that desperately needs a solution.
    B:	Useful. The paper is in an area that already has reasonable solutions
        but prior solutions are not great.
    C:	Okay. The paper is in an area that already has good solutions.
    D:	Irrelevant. The paper solves a problem that is not worth solving.

Novelty
    A:	Extreme. Exposes a new field or way of thinking about a field.
    B:	Solid. A new approach in an established field.
    C:	Incremental. A straightforward next step to an existing idea.
    D:	Known. This paper does not have anything new.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Detailed Comments

Please supply detailed comments to back up your rankings. These
comments will be forwarded to the author of the paper. The comments
should guide the author in making revisions for future
iterations. Hence, the more detailed you make your comments, the more
useful your review will be for the author.

Enter comments here:


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Confidential Comments

You may wish to withhold some comments from the author, and include
them solely for the instructor. For example, you may want to express a
very strong (negative) opinion on the paper, which might offend the
author in some way.  Or, perhaps you wish to write something which
would expose your identity to the author. If you wish to share
comments of this nature, this is the place to put them.

Enter comments here: