gistfile1.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- When filling out the review form please mind
--- the following rules:
--- (1) Lines beginning with "---" are comments.
---     Do not start lines in your review with ---
---     as they will be ignored. You can add comments to the
---     review form or remove them.
--- (2) Lines beginning with "***" are used by the system. Do not
---     remove or modify these lines or the review will become
---     unusable and will be rejected.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW FORM 
*** TITLE: Complexity of Songs
*** AUTHORS: unknown
*** PC MEMBER: Sten Gruener

The paper presents an application of complexity theory in the area 
of song classification. For this purpose author compares the 
length of a song (time needed to sing it) with its space complexity
(space required to write it down). During the course of the paper
examples of songs in different complexity classes ranging from
 O(c \cdot n), c < 1 to O(1) are presented.

--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW:
---  Please provide a detailed review, including justification for
---  your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless
---  the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required.

The main idea of the paper is to analyze and classify techniques
used by song-writers (e.g. refrains) in order to reduce the
space-complexity.

The review starts with a trivial observation that every song requires
at most linear space. Starting from this class, songs with decreasing
complexity are presented. The overall quality of proofs, references,
and readability is very high. The work is structured properly, and the 
major sublinear classes are covered by example songs. Despite these
facts, following questions arose during the review:

- The impact of the work and its contribution is not clear. Alternative
song-classification methods were also not mentioned in the work 
explicitly. In our opinion, a structured review of related work would
help to clarify the motivation and the perspectives of the paper.

- The decreasing space-complexity of the presented songs is
correlated with their age. It is unclear whether this was intended 
or is just a coincidence. If the author intends to present a theory 
of a continuous drop in the complexity of the modern songs, they
need to justify it with statistical surveys. If not, the author should
choose a sample of songs with a greater variety of ages.

- Author states that "the advent of modern drugs has led to demands for
still less memory" without any references. Such a categorical statement
requires scientific evidence and we advise the author to rework the 
mentioned passage.

--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE:
---  If you wish to add any remarks for PC members, please write
---  them below. These remarks will only be used during the PC
---  meeting. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is
---  optional.

Despite the outstanding quality of proofs and references, this paper seems
to be an insider joke. Therefore, we question whether such a paper
matches the topic of our event.

Under these circumstances, the given marks are rather related to the author's
scene of humor than to the scientific contribution of his work.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- In the evaluations below, uncomment the line with your
--- evaluation or confidence. You can also remove the
--- irrelevant lines
*** OVERALL EVALUATION:

---  2 (accept)

*** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:

---  3 (high)

*** ORIGINALITY AND POTENTIAL IMPACT: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)

*** PRESENTATION, ORGANISATION AND READABILITY: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)

*** END
--------------------------------------------------------------

review.diff

diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
index 0d643a7..6eb5577 100644
--- a/gistfile1.txt
+++ b/gistfile1.txt
@@ -43,16 +43,17 @@ song-classification methods were also not mentioned in the work
 explicitly. In our opinion, a structured review of related work would
 help to clarify the motivation and the perspectives of the paper.
 
-- The decreasing space-complexity of the presented songs are
-correlated with their age. We are not sure whether this whether this was
-intended or ist just a coincidence. In the the first case, we suppose that
-a theory of a continuous drop in the complexity of the modern songs is not
-justifiable without statistical surveys.
+- The decreasing space-complexity of the presented songs is
+correlated with their age. It is unclear whether this was intended 
+or is just a coincidence. If the author intends to present a theory 
+of a continuous drop in the complexity of the modern songs, they
+need to justify it with statistical surveys. If not, the author should
+choose a sample of songs with a greater variety of ages.
 
 - Author states that "the advent of modern drugs has led to demands for
-still less memory" without any references. We are convinced that such a
-fundamental statement requires scientific evidence and
-advice the author to rework the mentioned passage.
+still less memory" without any references. Such a categorical statement
+requires scientific evidence and we advise the author to rework the 
+mentioned passage.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 *** REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE:
@@ -62,7 +63,7 @@ advice the author to rework the mentioned passage.
 ---  optional.
 
 Despite the outstanding quality of proofs and references, this paper seems
-to be an insider joke. Therefore, it is questionable, whether such a paper
+to be an insider joke. Therefore, we question whether such a paper
 matches the topic of our event.
 
 Under these circumstances, the given marks are rather related to the author's