#ICS'94 Referee Evaluation Form (please edit electronically and return)
#Note: the # in column one is to allow some automatic processing of this file

#Paper Number:
#Paper Title:

#The most important part of your review is this page, the summary and 
#your comments on the paper!

#(1) Please write a brief summary (2-5 sentences) of the main point(s) 
#    of the paper, as you understand it:


#(2) What is the best part of the paper?


#(3) What is the worst part of the paper?


#(4) Detailed comments if any, including suggested improvements:


#(5) Is the paper relevant to ICS?  [delete one of the following lines]
        No
        Yes

#(6) Is the paper correct?          [delete all but one of these lines]
        I could not fully check the paper, but there are some errors.
        I could not fully check the paper, but it seems ok.
        There are serious errors or problems.
        There are minor errors or problems.
        It seems ok.
        The explanations are clear and correct.

#(7) Is the result important?       [delete all but one of these lines]
        Not likely to be important to anyone.
        Important to some.
        Very important to some.
        Important to many.
        Very important to many.
        Provides useful insights to some.
        Provides useful insights to many.


#(8) How original is the main contribution?   [delete all but one line]
        I cannot evaluate the originality.
        Old idea.
        New insight into an old idea.
        New application of an old idea.
        Refinement or improvement of an old idea.
        New idea.

#(9) How readable is the paper?               [delete all but one line]
        I had a hard time reading the paper.
        I could read the paper, but it took some effort.
        The paper was well-written.

#(10) How confident am I in my review?        [delete all but one line]
        I barely understood the paper.
        I understood the paper well, but do not work in this field.
        I work in a related field.
        I often read papers in this field.
        I work and publish papers in the same field or topic.
        I am an expert or write textbooks in this field.

#(11) How generally acceptable is this paper for ICS'95?
        Paper should be rejected and authors should not try again.
        Probably should be rejected.
        Acceptable after revisions.
        Acceptable.
        Definitely should be accepted.
        Should be considered for best paper award.


#PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RETURN A MARKED-UP MANUSCRIPT.
#THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT!

#Confidential comments (withheld from the authors):


#Date of review (withheld from the authors): 

#Referee's name (withheld from the authors): 

#Affiliation (withheld from the authors):

#Thank you for your help in evaluating the program for the
#Ninth ACM International Conference on Supercomputing.