REFEREE FORM FOR ACM Mobile Computing and Communications Review
Referee name:
Position/Affiliation:
Phone number:
Internet Address:
Postal Address:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please assess your competence in the subject matter of the paper, on a scale
of 0 to 1, assuming Expert=1.0, Strong=0.8, General=0.6, Marginal=0.4.
Competence:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of the Paper:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Category Your Rating Scale Definition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Work 5=Excellent work and a major contribution
and Contribution |-----| 4=Good solid work of some importance
| | 3=Solid work but marginal contribution
|-----| 2=Marginal work and very minor contribution
1=Very questionable work and contribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originality 5=Highly original work
Novelty |-----| 4=Contains an original contribution
| | 3=Somewhat original
|-----| 2=Variation of a known concept
1=Complete lack of original ideas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significance 5=Excellent
of the Topic |-----| 4=Very Good
| | 3=Good
|-----| 2=YAPA (yet another paper about...)
1=Obsolete Topic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of 5=Very good
Presentation |-----| 4=Basically well written
| | 3=Readable
|-----| 2=Needs considerable work
1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical 5=Very good
Correctness |-----| 4=Good
| | 3=Flaws but Easy to Correct
|-----| 2=Some Flaws
1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of 5=Excellent
Reader Interest |-----| 4=Very Good
| | 3=Good
|-----| 2=Fair
1=Poor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Utility 5=Excellent
|-----| 4=Very Good
| | 3=Good
|-----| 2=Fair
1=Poor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall 5=Strong Accept (very good quality)
Rating |-----| 4=Accept (good quality)
| | 3=Accept if room (marginal quality)
|-----| 2=Likely reject (low quality)
1=Definitely reject (has no merit)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please substantiate your numerical rankings by answering the following
questions and/or giving detailed comments on the paper. Skimpy reviews
(only containing numerical rankings) will not be considered!
1. WHAT, in your opinion, are the most original contributions of this paper?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. WHAT, in your opinion, is the significance of the paper? What aspects of
the paper are likely to be used by other researchers and/or practitioners?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Please detail any technical errors, uncited related work, and/or ways in
which the technical material could be improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Any additional comments for the authors (e.g., how might the paper be
further improved beyond 1--3 above?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% {please do not remove this line}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Please summarize the paper in your own words and very few sentences
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidential comments
[Comments on this paper for the editors (to be withheld from the
author(S)). Please include here any comments about why the paper should
be accepted or rejected.