Referee Report Form

ACM

SIGCSE

Because We Teach...

SIGCSE
2001

SIGCSE 2001:  February 21-25, Charlotte, NC  USA  

The 32nd Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 21-25, 2001

Charlotte, NC   USA

Theme: Towards Excellence in Computing Education


Due Date: Friday, October 6

Notes to Referees:

  1. This form uses JavaScript to check entries for omissions and errors. On most browsers, omissions are reported by this page when you click the "submit" button.

    The form still will work on most or all browsers when JavaScript is turned off. However, in such cases, omissions may not be caught, and the review-submission scripts may not handle the omissions as desired.

    If you have JavaScript turned off on your browser, please double check that all parts of this form are completed, and check the full response to your review submission, to be sure no errors are reported in the submission process.

  2. Following the normal backup schedule, the server holding the SIGCSE 2001 Database will be down on Friday, October 6, between 9:00pm and 10:00pm Central Daylight Time. Reviews should be accepted without trouble both before and after this backup time.

  3. All the information in this form will eventually be sent to the author of the paper with the exception of the referee name and the private comments to the Program Committee. These two confidential items are written in red and have the symbol # preceding them.

    Additionally, all reviews submitted for a paper will be distributed to all reviewers of that paper. It is hoped that, over time, this feedback will help referees improve their reviews as they can compare their responses to those of others.

    The on-line reviewing of papers with this form requires version 3.0 or higher of Netscape or Internet Explorer. The form also uses Javascript for error checking.


Paper Number:  

Title:  

# Referee Number (Sent to Each Referee):  

Referee's familiarity with topic of paper:   Low    Medium    High 


Focus: In your opinion, at what area(s) is the paper directed?  Indicate all that apply.

 Course Related
Algorithms Architecture Artificial Intelligence
Classroom Management CS 1&2 Database Systems
Distributed/Parallel Computing Formal Methods/Theory Graphics/Visualization
Human-Computer Interaction Networks/Data Communications Operating Systems
Programming Languages/Paradigms Software Engineering Supporting Courses/Internships
 General Topics
Advanced Placement / International
Baccaulaureate Courses and Curricula
Communicaton Skills Courseware
Curricular Issues CS Ed Research Distance Learning
Ethical/Societal Issues Gender and Diversity Issues Lab Environments
Multimedia Non-majors Non-traditional Students
Object-Oriented Issues Pedagogy Undergraduate Research/Capstones
Web-based Techniques
Other


Rate the quality of the paper in each category according to following scale:

 6   Exceptional Top 5% Likely to be among top 10 papers at conference
 5   Outstanding Next 15% Above average for symposium papers
 4   Very Good Next 20% Comparable to many symposium papers
 3   Average Middle 20% Average symposium papers
 2   Below Average Lower 30% Correct but not too interesting
 1   Deficient Bottom 10% Contains serious errors or deficiencies

While the paper sent to an individual referee may be of much higher or lower quality than the norm, the above percentiles may give some guidance about how the ratings are to be used.  For example, on average, if you are reviewing 4 papers, you might expect 1-2 papers in the top 2 categories, 1-2 in the middle categories and 1-2 in the bottom 2 categories.  Only about 40% of the papers submitted can be accepted, due to time limitations at the Symposium.


Technical content of the paper:
 6 Exceptional
 5 Outstanding
 4 Very Good
 3 Average
 2 Below Average
 1 Deficient
  Comments (please be constructive and as specific as possible):



Organization and writing style of the paper:
 6 Exceptional
 5 Outstanding
 4 Very Good
 3 Average
 2 Below Average
 1 Deficient
Comments (please be constructive and as specific as possible):



Originality of the paper:
 6 Exceptional
 5 Outstanding
 4 Very Good
 3 Average
 2 Below Average
 1 Deficient
Comments (please be constructive and as specific as possible):



Significance of the paper:
 6 Exceptional
 5 Outstanding
 4 Very Good
 3 Average
 2 Below Average
 1 Deficient
Comments (please be constructive and as specific as possible):



Overall Recommendation:
 6 Exceptional
 5 Outstanding
 4 Very Good
 3 Average
 2 Below Average
 1 Deficient
Comments (please be constructive and as specific as possible):



Suggestions for oral presentation at the symposium if the paper is accepted:
 


# Write your confidential comments for the Program Committee.
These will NOT be sent to the author.


created June 2, 1999
last revised September 20, 2000 by Henry M. Walker, walker@cs.grinnell.edu