===== ABOUT THIS REVIEW =====
Paper Number:
Reviewer:
Paper Title:
* Your name will not be disclosed to the paper authors or to any other reviewers.
* Please direct any questions to the paper's associate chair. [email address to be found on the web-based review form for each paper]
===== INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWER =====
Detailed reviewing is critical to assuring a high quality conference and is an invaluable aid to the authors in improving their paper. We
appreciate your willingness to undertake this important task. Please be aware that unreturned or late reviews are extremely disruptive to
our process.
In composing your review please do the following:
* Be polite: Authors have put considerable effort into their papers
-- even into submissions that are clearly not ready for publication
-- and deserve courteous treatment.
* Be constructive: Many of the authors will make use of your comments in improving their submissions either for CHI or for other venues.
* Write clearly: Authors may be from different disciplines, cultures, or have different linguistic backgrounds: minimize your use of
jargon, acronyms, idioms, humor, etc.
* Provide detail: Reviews serve as input to discussions by the program committee, and -- since the opinions of reviewers often vary
-- it is critical to explain the rationale behind your assessments (positive or negative), and to provide support for claims you make.
* Cite relevant past work: The committee cannot assess the significance of the paper's contribution without taking such work
into account.
For a more complete guide to CHI Reviewing see the Reviewers
Guide, which includes examples of suitable and unsuitable CHI Reviews
===== THE REVIEW FORM =====
1. Rating: Provide a rating of the paper's acceptability.
5 - Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this paper.
4 - Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this paper.
3 - Borderline: Overall I would not argue for accepting this paper.
2 - Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this paper.
1 - Definite reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this paper.
2. Expertise: Rate your expertise in the topic area of this paper.
4 - Expert
3 - Knowledgeable
2 - Passing Knowledge
1 - No Knowledge
3. Other Expertise Comments: Other comments about your expertise relative to this paper that might aid the interpretation or weighting
of your review:
4. Contribution to HCI: In your own words state, in two or three sentences, what contribution the paper aims to make to the field of
Human-Computer Interaction.
5. The Review: Write your review of the paper here. Please address each of the following 4 issues:
* Previous work in this area of which you are aware, against which this paper's contribution could be assessed
* Significance of the paper's contribution to HCI and the benefit that others can gain from the contribution: why do the contribution
and benefit matter?
* Validity of the work presented: how confidently can researchers and practitioners take up the results?
* Originality of the work: have new ideas or approaches been introduced where needed?
6. Areas for Improvement: Identify aspects of the paper's written presentation that need improvement, including:
* statements or passages that could be expressed more clearly and concisely
* figures that are redundant, difficult to understand, or missing
* incomplete or missing references, or citations that lack references
* changes that could make the paper more understandable to an international readership
* problems in formatting, layout, or legibility
7. Additional Comments: Additional comments that you want forwarded to the author(s):
8. Comments to Committee: Comments for the review committee that will NOT be sent to the authors:
===== END: CHI 2003 LONG PAPERS REVIEW FORM =====