Reviewer Report Form

SIGCSE
Because We Teach...

SIGCSE
2002

The 33rd Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 27-March 3, 2002		Northern Kentucky/The Southern Side of Cincinnati
Theme: At the Center of Change

Due Date: Friday, October 5

Note to the Reviewer: All the information in this form will eventually be sent to the author of the paper with the exception of the reviewer 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 reviewers 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:

# Reviewer Number (Sent to Each Reviewer):

Reviewer'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 Baccalaureate Courses and Curricula	Communication 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 reviewer 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 quality of the paper:

6	Exceptional
5	Outstanding
4	Very Good
3	Average
2	Below Average
1	Deficient