CS 661 Formal Compiling Methods, Fall 2001

Review Format

During eleven weeks of the semester, two papers will be presented each week. On Thursday afternoon of each of those weeks, I will announce the list of reviewers for each of the two papers presented that week. The reviews are due as detailed in the schedule.
All reviews must be written as a Latex source file. There is a required format:
- example review (Latex source) ,
- example review (in pdf format).
To write a review, edit the Latex source of the example review. Use only plain Latex; no inputs, includes, ps files, or such. Once you have a Latex source file, say review.tex, you can create dvi, ps, and pdf files as follows:
```
   latex  review         -- creates review.dvi from review.tex
   dvips  review -o      -- creates review.ps  from review.dvi
   ps2pdf review         -- creates review.pdf from review.ps
```
The review format is doublespaced to make it easy to give handwritten feedback directly on a hardcopy of the review.
When submitting a review to Scott Baxter, send it by email as an attachment in pdf format. Please scan all files for viruses before sending them. The subject line of the message should read "manuscript review".
When submitting a review to Jens Palsberg, send it by email as two attachments, one in Latex source format, and one in PostScript format. The subject line of the message should read "CS 661 review".
In addition to the usual analysis and recommendations, a review should contain two specific items of information: a numerical rating and a publication recommendation. We will use the rating system of ACM TOPLAS, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. The numerical rating is a summary of your prediction of the quality of the *final* paper, i.e., after any revisions you might recommend:
- 1 - a terrible paper; wouldn't recommend publication anywhere
- 2 - paper has some value, but not enough for journal or major conference publication
- 3 - below average journal paper; content is new and has some interest, but pretty lightweight
- 4 - an average journal paper; results are not all that exciting
- 5 - an above average journal paper; paper will be widely read within a narrow field
- 6 - well above average; a paper that will be widely cited
- 7 - excellent paper; will be of interest to most TOPLAS subscribers
- 8 - superb paper; if TOPLAS were to publish only five papers this year, this should be one of them.
Your publication recommendation should be one of the following:
- accept,
- accept with minor revisions,
- reconsider after major revisions, or
- reject.