In what respect is the paper relevant to computational geometry? Is it directly relevant for the design, use, analysis, or implementation of geometric algorithms? Or may it have indirect implications for the development or the theory of algorithms?
Note things like a new model, new notion, new definition, new approach, novel implementation, novel application. Note the significance and reasons for this novelty (and note the absence of such a novelty!).
Does the paper make
Relation to open problems
Does the paper solve completely/partially an open question? How important is this question? (central/important/interesting/legitimate/stupid). How much effort has been invested in solving it and by whom?
Social interest in paper
Is it potentially interesting to the whole community of computational geometry, to a major field (e.g. motion planning), to everyone in a restricted area (e.g. pseudotriangulations), or interesting only to the authors?
How will it contribute?
fertilization, satisfy curiosity, who knows?
Is it a
If you wish, but you don't have to, you may also suggest an overall grade (integer between -4 and 4 [-4=absolute reject, 4=enthusiastic accept] and a confidence level of your judgment on a scale between 1 and 3, as indicated below. You may also break down you evaluation by giving a score in each of the following categories:
||This summarizes the technical
contributions, as well as any issues about correctness.
|Originality:||Does the paper introduce a novel viewpoint or some new technique of general interest, or is it only an application of standard tools?|
|Presentation:||How clearly is the paper written? (And does it promise to make a good talk?) Does it follow the submission quidelines?|
|Appropriateness:||How interesting is the paper to
the community? Is it within the scope of the conference?
|4||An enthusiastic accept. An excellent paper - advances the field in an important way - well written and makes it easy to understand what the significance of their result is. Everyone should definitely attend the talk. This should be among the top 10% of the papers accepted to the conference. I would fight strongly for this paper.|
|3||A solid contribution. I feel I learned something worthwhile from this paper. I would want to go to the talk. This paper should be in the top third of the papers in the conference.|
|2||This will be in the middle third of the papers at the conference. Not a stellar result, but clearly worth accepting.|
|1||A weak vote for acceptance. A reasonable contribution to an interesting problem - or maybe the contribution is good but the authors don't seem to understand what it is and/or express it well - or maybe it's a good paper, but the subject area is marginal for the conference.|
|0||Ambivalent. Probably publishable as a journal paper in a medium journal, but a bit too specialized or too incremental for SoCG. Or perhaps it has nice ideas but is too preliminary, or too poorly written.|
||A competent paper, but not of sufficient interest/depth for SoCG'08. A weak to moderate vote for rejection, but I concede that other people see some merits in the paper.|
||Too preliminary / badly-written / making-such-a-minor-improvement-on-such-an-esoteric-topic. I would fight to have this paper rejected from the conference.|
||A poor paper, unsuitable for any journal.|
||Absolute reject. Trivial and/or non-novel and/or incorrect and/or out of scope.|
||Expert. Consider me an "expert" on this paper. I understand it in detail. I know the field, and I am perfectly sure about my judgement; I have checked and understood all proofs.|
||High. I am fairly familiar with the area of this paper, and have read the paper closely enough to be reasonably confident of my judgment.|
||Medium. I have read the paper carefully and understood the main ideas, but I'm not very confident of my judgment on it.|
||Low. I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider. I have some idea of what this paper is about, but I'm not all that confident of my judgment on it.|
||Null. (to be avoided...!)|
(S)he may copy-paste into the reviewing system the written
reviews (s)he gets from sub-reviewers, if any, together with their names.
Still, the scores and confidence level (s)he gives to a paper are his/her own scores and confidence level, and (s)he will have to give more details on his/her opinion whenever needed during the discussion phase.
For each submitted paper, one PC member will be in charge of writing the feedback to authors at the end of the review process.