Review Form.txt

==+== =====================================================================
==+== Begin Review
==+== Reviewer: YOUR NAME HERE <YOUR ASUID@asu.edu>

==+== Paper Number

(Enter paper number here)
Paper #

==+== Review Readiness
==-== Enter "Ready" if the review is ready for others to see:

Ready

==+== A. Paper summary
==-==    Provide an overview of the paper in your own words that can serve
==-==    as an explanation of the paper for other committee members.
==-==    What problem does it address (1-2 bullet points)?
==-==    What are the paper’s key insights (1-2 bullet points)?
==-==    What are the paper’s key scientific and technical contributions
==-==    (2-3 bullet points)?
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.





==+== B. Strengths
==-==    List the paper's strengths — eg: idea and/or problem space
==-==    novelty, new technique, the efficacy of the solution, etc. Just a
==-==    few bullets, please.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.



==+== C. Weaknesses
==-==    What are the paper’s important weaknesses? Just a few bullets,
==-==    please.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.





==+== D. Novelty
==-==    How new or surprising is the work?
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Choices:
==-==    1. Published before or openly commercialized
==-==    2. Incremental improvement
==-==    3. New contribution
==-==    4. Surprisingly new contribution
==-== Enter the number of your choice:

(Your choice here)



==+== E. Evaluation
==-==    Describe how well the idea is evaluated. Be as accurate as
==-==    possible when selecting the evaluation methodology soundness,
==-==    depth, and ability to capture important factors in evaluating the
==-==    solution, but keep in mind that some ideas are more challenging to
==-==    evaluate than others. Also acknowledge the wide range of
==-==    evaluation methodologies in our community including modeling,
==-==    simulation, prototyping, experimental implementation, real product
==-==    evaluation, etc.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Choices:
==-==    1. The idea is not appropriately evaluated
==-==    2. The evaluation is shallow and there are major weaknesses
==-==    3. There are some minor issues with the evaluation, but they can
==-==       be solved
==-==    4. The evaluation is excellent and demonstrates the value of the
==-==       idea
==-== Enter the number of your choice:

(Your choice here)



==+== F. Impact
==-==    What difference will this paper make in the field?
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Choices:
==-==    1. Unlikely to have impact
==-==    2. Likely to have minor impact
==-==    3. Likely to impact future research and/or products
==-==    4. Likely to  have major impact on future research and/or
==-==       products; inspire new research or start a new line of
==-==       research/products
==-== Enter the number of your choice:

(Your choice here)



==+== G. Writing quality
==-==    How easy-to-read was this paper? Please be mindful of structure,
==-==    flow and English language quality.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Choices:
==-==    1. Unacceptable
==-==    2. Needs improvement
==-==    3. Adequate
==-==    4. Well-written
==-== Enter the number of your choice:

(Your choice here)



==+== I. Overall merit (absolute)
==-==    Evaluate whether this paper is ISCA-worthy on an absolute scale.
==-==    Consider key scientific contributions: how it advances the state
==-==    of the art in the field, why it matters, how likely it is to have
==-==    a substantial impact, how interesting this paper is to the ISCA
==-==    community as a whole, etc. The top 2 ratings mean that you think
==-==    the paper is acceptable to the conference and the bottom 2 ratings
==-==    mean that the paper is not acceptable to the conference.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Choices:
==-==    1. Strong Reject - This paper should not be accepted to ISCA. It
==-==       has too many serious problems.
==-==    2. Weak Reject - This paper has many weaknesses and preferably not
==-==       be accepted to ISCA.
==-==    3. Weak Accept - This paper is above the threshold for ISCA
==-==       acceptance.
==-==    4. Strong Accept - This paper is almost flawless and should
==-==       definitely be accepted for ISCA.
==-== Enter the number of your choice:

(Your choice here)




==+== L. Comments for authors
==-==    Describe how you evaluate this paper and bear in mind to provide
==-==    constructive feedback to the authors.
==-==    Please maintain a respectful and professional tone in your review
==-==    — pretend that you are submitting a non-blind review to your
==-==    dearest colleague.  If you believe the work is incremental, you
==-==    MUST provide specific pointers to prior work that captures most of
==-==    the paper’s contributions.
==-==    If you say relevant work is missing, provide citation of missing
==-==    work.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.

<Refer to Lecture 1 Paper Review Tips and the Sample Review for this section>




==+== M. Questions for authors’ response
==-==    Please spell out important questions you would like to see
==-==    clarified by the authors, or minor revisions that can be addressed
==-==    during the rebuttal period. Please be specific and reasonable —
==-==    only suggest changes and questions that can be reasonably
==-==    addressed given the time.
==-== (hidden from authors until decision)
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.



==+== N. Any ideas or next steps to improve upon this paper?
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.




==+== O. Comments for the Instructor
==-==    Any other comments you would like to share with the Instructor.
==-== (shown only to chairs)
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.



==+== End Review