Fill in this form and submit it via the online submission system. 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 section scores a 3, delete all else leaving [3]. Blank spaces are indicative of areas to type in detail but you can type as much as you need to and not be restricted by the number of blank lines. 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: ############## 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 12-point double-line-spaced, headings larger and bold. 2cm margin from side of A4 page. Fewer than 15pages excluding appendices. 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): ################ Literature Review: ##############[012345] 0 = no obvious value 1 = some papers summarized but point not clear 2 = some point to literature review, somewhat related to own work 3 = literature review a summary of papers but point clear 4 = proper discussion not just summary of papers, well related to own work 5 = very good collection of related work, strongly supports case for own work A literature review which simply summarizes a collection of other papers is not acceptable. Summarising references one at a time does not show any insight. Fill in here improvements to make the literature review better. ############## Work done & Achievements: ##############[012345] 0 = no work done 1 = something done but unacceptable amount 2 = reasonable amount done, but does not achieve any goals 3 = reasonable amount of work done, and some limited achievements 4 = work carried out with supporting evidence and demonstrate a logical development; satisfies the main goals of the project 5 = work completed in a logical manner which ties with the goals of the project. The extent and relevance of the work must be clearly spelt out and supported by evidence of implementation, measurement or other indication of what was done. Fill in here for comments on work carried out. ############## Overall Contribution: ##############[012345] 0 = no obvious contribution 1 = something done but point not clear 2 = reasonable amount done, purpose of work unclear 3 = purpose clear but does not strongly advance proposed SMP-SoC project 4 = supports overall project; significant work; conclusion could be more clearly supported 5 = clearly makes case and backs up well; strong conclusions based on clear contribution to advancing the given project The original contribution of the work must be clearly spelt out and supported by results and conclusions with hard data. Fill in here improvements to make the contribution clearer. ##############