GECCO-2003 PAPER REVIEW FORM

Reviewer No. __________

Paper No. _______

Title: ______________

1.  REVIEWER'S STATEMENT:
- I have read this paper.
- Either a) or b) below is true:
a) From my reading of this paper, I do not recognize the identity of the    author(s), and I have not, within the past year, reviewed what appears to be substantially the same work.
   OR,
b) I believe I may have identified the author(s) of this work, but if so,
+ I am not at the same institution as any of the likely authors,
+ I am not reviewing more than one paper for this conference by what appears to be the same author(s),
+ I do not have an especially close relationship (or an antagonistic relationship) with the presumed author(s).
+ I have not, within the past year, reviewed substantially the
        same work by the presumed author(s).

- This review is my own opinion and work and has not been delegated to anyone (specifically including students or subordinates).
- I have not discussed my review of this paper with any other peer reviewer for this conference.
- I will regard any new intellectual content of this paper as confidential and will not disclose or use it until such time as it gets published under the author's name or otherwise becomes publicly known (and, if I discussed this review with anyone else at all, they have also explicitly agreed to maintain the author's work as confidential and I notified the General Chair of their agreement to do so).
- I feel that I am qualified to review this paper.

__  Yes (indicates a "yes" to all of the above items for this paper)
__ No


2. RELEVANCE TO THIS CONFERENCE:  Is the subject of this paper relevant to this conference?

__   Yes
__ No


3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM: Is the subject of the paper important?



4. CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF A PROBLEM: Does the paper have a clearly stated problem to address? 



5. ACHIEVEMENT OF STATED OBJECTIVE:  Does the paper clearly establish its main point (problem, issue, etc.) and stay focused and deliver on this stated objective? 



6. WRITING QUALITY:  How good is the organization, sentence structure, mechanics (e.g., figures, tables), spelling, and, above all, the clarity of this paper? Please suggest ways to improve the readability of the paper.



7. REPLICABILITY:  If the paper describes an experiment, is there adequate information in the paper to permit replication of the experiment?


8. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES:  Is there anything that needs to be added/corrected/subtracted from the bibliography?
This reviewer does not know of any missing references.


9. SUGGESTIONS TO AUTHOR FOR IMPROVING THIS PAPER:  Regardless of the rating you are giving to this paper, what suggestions would you make to the author to improve this paper (e.g., minor and major errors or omissions, unclear points, etc.) ? 



10. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:


11. ABSOLUTE RECOMMENDATION (A - G) OF PAPER: Based on your opinion of what should and should not be accepted at the conference. (A-G) are in order. If you are sure the submission is worth of a poster (C) but is also probably OK to be a full paper indicate B. C indicates you think it should NOT be a full paper.


  C. definitely accept as poster (one page in proceedings)
  D. probably accept as poster (one page in proceedings)
  E. uncertain
  F. probably reject outright
  G. definitely reject outright

  Your recommendation (A - G) _____

Please be sure to enter this letter (A - G) on the SUMMARY line at the bottom of this form.


12.  CONFIDENCE:
__ high
__ medium
__ low


13. AMOUNT OF REVISION NEEDED:
___ none
___ little
___ moderate
___ large


14. RELATIVE (NUMERICAL RATING) RECOMMENDATION OF PAPER:  
You have a total of 125 points to allocate among 5 papers. Assign more points to a better paper (but a maximum of 50 for any one paper). Allocate ALL of these 125 points for 5 papers among your papers so that the sum of your allocations totals 125 points for 5 papers. (In event that you are reviewing 4 papers, the sum should be 100; it should be 150 for 6 papers): __25___ 

Please be sure to enter this number on the SUMMARY line at the bottom
of this form.


15. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAPERS THAT YOU REVIEWED:   ______

16. BEST-PAPER AWARD NOMINATION  
Do you think this paper could be among the best in its track?

__ Yes
__ No


17. OPTIONAL REVIEWER IDENTIFICATION:
If you want to sign this review so that the paper's authors see your name, sign your name here.  Otherwise, leave this line blank.

______________________________________________________________________

18. SUMMARY LINE:  Please replace the #'s on this summary line with your reviewer number, the paper number, the letter (A - G) from question 11, the number from question 14, and your award nomination (Y/N). 

***SUMMARY***  Reviewer ###  Paper 91  Q11:  Q14:  Award: