This Is a Slightly Modified Version of the IEEE-TKDE Review Form. Only Use for Educational
This is a slightly modified version of the IEEE-TKDE review form.
Only use for educational purpose!
Warning: Not everything that is published is good. Not everything that is published is even technically correct. Trust your own judgment. Try to be objective.
IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY
Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Author(s):
Title:
Name of Referee:
Date to be returned: XXX or ASAP
SECTION I. COMMENTS TO BE WITHHELD FROM AUTHOR(S).
(Please use this section only for comments that might compromise your anonymity.
Use Section IV for other comments. Use as many lines as needed.)
Skip this Section I
EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE WILL BE RETURNED TO THE AUTHORS
======
SECTION II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION - Overall quality is:
___Excellent ___Good ___Fair ___Poor
RECOMMENDATION:
___Accept with no changes
___Accept if certain minor revisions are made (see Section IV)
___Author should prepare a major revision (see Section IV) for a second review.
(Not applicable if the paper is itself a major revision of a previously reviewed
paper.)
___Reject
SECTION III. OVERVIEW
A). READER INTEREST
a). Is the paper of current interest to a reasonable segment of the IEEE
Transactions readership?
___Yes ___Perhaps ___No
b). How will the level of interest change during the next five years?
___Increase ___Little change ___Decrease
c). Within its particular field of specialization, is the topic of the paper
considered important?
___Yes ___Moderately so ___Not really
B). CONTENT
a). Is the paper technically sound?
___Yes ___Perhaps ___Partially ___No
b). How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?
___Expert level ___Specialist ___Non-specialist ___Superficial
c). Does the paper make a tangible contribution to the state-of-the-art in its
field?
___Yes ___To a limited extent ___No
d). Is the bibliography adequate?
___Yes ___Yes, but see Sec. IV ___No
e). To what extent is the material in the paper likely to be used by other
researchers and practitioners?
___Large ___Average ___Small
C). PRESENTATION
a). Is the abstract an appropriate and adequate digest of the work presented?
___Yes ___No
b). Does the introduction clearly state the background and motivation in terms
understandable to the non-specialist?
___Yes ___Probably ___No
c). How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?
___Satisfactory ___Can be improved ___Poor
d). Relative to the technical content, is the length of the paper appropriate?
___Yes ___Too long ___Too short
e). Is the English satisfactory?
___Yes ___No
f). How readable is the paper for a computer scientist or engineer who is not a
specialist in this particular field?
___Easy ___Self-contained ___Needs clarification ___Unreadable
g). Disregarding the technical content, how would you regard the quality of
presentation?
___Excellent ___Good ___Fair ___Poor
SECTION IV. DETAILED COMMENTS
(Please use this section to provide comments to the authors for improving
and revising their paper. The comments here will be more helpful to the
editor and the authors than the numerical results in previous sections.
Use as many lines as needed.)
======END OF REVIEW FORM ======
Instead of section IV in the form above do the following:
1) Write a 1/4-1/2 page summary of the paper using this font, size and spacing. Make sure that you describe succinctly the main idea and the purpose of the paper.
2) Write any questions/ideas/comments you have about the paper down. This can be sections that are unclear, methods or techniques that need explaining, etc.
3) Identify the 3 strongest points about the paper.
1. ______
2. ______
3. ______
4) Identify the 3 weakest points of the paper.
1. ______
2. ______
3. ______
5) Detailed Comments: Explain your final recommendation in Section II (e.g., why is it a good/bad paper). Describe what the authors could have dine better, etc.
6) Are the results in the paper valid and reproducible? (only if the paper has experiments/analysis)
a) Is the experiment/analysis clearly defined? Y ___ / N ___
b) Is the procedure in sufficient described in detail to be reproduced? Y ___ / N ___
Code is available? Y ___ / N ___Data is available? Y ___ / N ___
c) Is the new approach compared to the state-of-the-art? Y ___ / N___
Only if NO: What is the state-of-the-art? ______
d) Are valid metrics used? Y ___ / N ___
What (other) metrics could be used: ______
e) Are the conclusions valid? Y ___ / N ___
f) Are the results convincing? Y ___ / N ___
Grading Notes (for instructor only):
Completed form:______(max 10)
Summary:______(max 40)
Strong/weak points:______(max 20)
Results:______(max 10)
Participation:______(max 20)
Total:______(max 100)