Reviewer's Name:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings

 Rating Category    Your Rating       Scale Definition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of work              5=Excellent work and a major contribution
and contribution     |-----|    4=Good solid work of some importance
                     |     |    3=Solid work but marginal contribution
                     |-----|    2=Marginal work and very minor contribution
                                1=Very questionable work and contribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originality                     5=Trailblazing
novelty              |-----|    4=A pioneering piece of work
                     |     |    3=One step ahead of the pack
                     |-----|    2=YAPA (yet another paper about...)
                                1=It's been said many times before
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readability and                 5=Very good
organization         |-----|    4=Basically well written
                     |     |    3=Readable
                     |-----|    2=Needs considerable work
                                1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall                         5=Definitely accept (very high quality)
recommendation       |-----|    4=Accept (good quality)
                     |     |    3=Accept if room (marginal quality)
                     |-----|    2=Likely reject (low quality)
                                1=Definitely reject (has no merit)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use the following structure for your comments:

1. Summarize the paper in your own words in one paragraph.
2. Briefly summarize your opinion of the paper.
3. Comment on strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Include: 
   **Illustrate your points with specific examples...avoid generalities!
	a. importance and correctness of results presented 
	b. validity of theoretical or experimental methodology (measurements,
	simulation, theorems and proofs)
	c. clarity of presentation and use of language 
	d. usefulness and clarity of figures, tables, graphs
   e. ways you think the paper could be improved.
4. Comment on future work, questions raised and wider implications of the results.