Fill in this form and email it to the course coordiator Philip Machanick philip@itee.uq.edu.au. General instructions Look for places marked with ############## where you need to fill in something; the notation "[012345]" means delete inapplicable digits, e.g., if the sections scores a 3, delete all else leaving [3]. Try to write helpful comments, i.e., comments which will aid the author in improving the paper. Fill in a separate form for each paper you review. --personal identification: will be removed before returning review--- Your student number:############## Your email address:############## Your family name:############## Your given names:############## ------------------review: WILL BE SENT TO AUTHOR----------------- Title of paper being reviewed: ############## Author of paper being reviewed: ############## Overall quality: ##############[012345] 0 = totally unacceptable 1 = minimal effort 2 = fair but a lot of work needed 3 = fair but could be improved 4 = good but could be better 5 = no significant flaws Layout, format and typography: ##############[012345] 0 = totally unacceptable 1 = major variants from standard 2 = some areas conform but a lot wrong 3 = significant fraction right 4 = mostly right but could be better, 5 = no significant flaws Fonts: all text Times of similar, except table and figure captions Helvetica or similar. Main text 10-point single-spaced, headings larger and bold. Headings numbered, subheadings numbered as a lower-level e.g. 1.2. All figures and tables numbered, and referred to in the text by number (e.g., "as can be seen in fig. 3"). Pages numbered. References cited in proper format e.g., when making a statement derived from paper 2, cite as [2] e.g., "... a RISC architecture is designed to simplify pipeline implementation [2]." Direct quotes should be avoided. Footnotes should be avoided. The reference list should be in alphabetical order of the first author's names (surname first). References listed in proper format: * journal articles: - authors - paper title - journal name in italics - volume and issue number in format vol. 2 no 3 - month and year - page numbers - e.g. (where the text between _ and _ is in italics): [1] J Anderson, C Jones and B Xu. History of RISC architectures, _IEEE Trans. on X_, vol. 245 no 5 May 2000, pp 205-245. * conference papers: - authors - paper title - conference name preceded by Proceedings of in italics - place - month and year - page numbers - e.g. (where the text between _ and _ is in italics): [2] J Jones, C Xu and B Smith. Evolution of CISC Architectures, _Proc. 118th Int. Conf. on Archaeology_, Seattle, May 2000, pp 1-4. * web references - authors (if not known, use publisher) - page title - URL - publisher - year (if unknown, list as date last visited) - e.g. (where the text between _ and _ is in italics): [3] X Jones. Future of CISC Architectures, http://www.nerd-jokes.com/cisc.html, ACM, last visited 17 May 2004 Note that web references which simply refer to a whole site are not acceptable and web references should not be used if there is a more formally published source. For all format errors as well as giving a score above, list corrections here. If many errors are of the same form, give a few examples (but indicate that there are more): ################ Contribution: ##############[012345] 0 = no obvious contribution 1 = some papers summarized but point not clear 2 = papers summarized with some point 3 = summary of papers leading to clear conclusion 4 = proper discussion not just summary of papers, conclusion could be more clearly supported 5 = Clearly makes case and backs up well A paper which simply summarizes a collection of other papers is not acceptable. It should attempt to arrive at a conclusion based on a discussion of known work, but this discussion should not simply take the form of summarizing references one at a time. Fill in here improvements to make the contribution clearer ##############