Review Report

Q1: Does the paper fit the conference?

Q2: Topic development; is there a clearly stated scientific aim?

Q3: Does the writer have a clear, concise description of the problem being solved?
Q4: Are the background, theory, and context well developed?

Q5: Does the writer use professional judgment on how much detail to provide?

Q6: Does the write-up lack detail or was it overly wordy?

Q7: Are the data logically and persuasively presented?

Q8: Is the data presented in a clear, efficient manner, explaining its relevance?

Q9: Are there reasons given for any anomalous data?

Q10: Are the figures presented in a logical, organized, professional format?
Q11: Is the paper well organized and presented in a professional style and/or format?

Q12: Does it follow the standard format of a scientific paper (abstract, introduction, experimental details or theoretical basis, results, discussion, and conclusion); some headings or sections may be omitted if the paper is a literature review or a theoretical paper.

Q13: Does the literature review include relevant scholarly references? Are there major omissions in the bibliography?

Q14: Is the bibliography formatted correctly in the following Style:
1. Abstract: one-column, single-spaced text
2. Body: one-column, double-spaced text?

Q15: Does the author explain what was learned or what insights were gained?

Q16: Does s/he exhibit an understanding of what the final results reveal?

Q17: Does the author attempt to tie together his/her work to that of others and to determine whether the work supports or makes contributions to the field?

Your review:

Please make also a decision on easychair.

Thanks for reviewing.