INSTRUCTIONS:

The reviewing is anonymous and the grade of the paper will not be
influenced by your review.
Rather we will assess the quality of your review.
You should give a polite, but honest and constructive feedback with
appropriate scores (as positive or as negative as the paper deserves).
Please write clear reviews that are meaningful for the authors.
Speak in particulars, not generalities. Never characterize the authors.






Please,replace " ... " between the appropriate tags with your text.



*** IMPORTANT ****
Please note that *all* answers to *all* questions (except the
confidential comments question and of course reviewer
identification) will be forwarded to the authors.
It is thus important to word your responses appropriately.



AUTHOR : ...
TITLE OF THE PAPER: ... 

========================================================================  

CLASSIFICATION:

Please classify the paper selecting one of the choices below
R - Research paper (presents innovative research results);
P - Practice and experience (variants, applications, case studies);
S - State-of-the-art report (reviews of recent advances);

-------------------------------------------------------------

...

========================================================================  

SUMMARY: 

Please summarize the paper in 1 - 2 paragraphs.

-------------------------------------------------------------

...

========================================================================  

ASSESSMENT:

-------------------------------------------------------------
CLARITY OF PRESENTATION: 
Is the paper adequately written (content, structure, English)?

...

-------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS: 
Are technical details and algorithms explained correctly and adequately ?

... 

-------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLETENESS OF REFERENCES: ... 

  
  IF NOT PLEASE LIST MISSING REFERENCES: ... 
  



========================================================================  

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

Please rate the submission using this scale:


0 - This is a bad paper
1 - This is an average paper
2 - This is a nice paper
3 - This is an excellent paper

Followed by a SHORT EXPLANATION for your grade.

-------------------------------------------------------------

...


========================================================================  
CONFIDENCE IN THE EVALUATION: 

Using this scale

1 - I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.
2 - I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert.
3 - I am an expert on the subject area of this paper.

rate your degree of confidence in your evaluation.

-------------------------------------------------------------


...

========================================================================  

  
MINOR OR MAJOR REVISIONS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED? (MINOR/MAJOR/NO REVISION) 
  
Please describe the required changes in "Additional Comments for the
authors"

-------------------------------------------------------------

...

========================================================================  

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHORS:
 
Please provide detailed comments that could improve the paper

-------------------------------------------------------------

...

========================================================================