常见会议文章Review模板

http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~gjb47/tmp/ICCVreviewing/ReviewForm/ICCV_review_Paper%23%23%23%23.txt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ICCV2007 Review Report


Title:	*####* - *PAPER TITLE GOES HERE*

*Key Contribution:* (cannot be left blank)






*The rank of this paper:* (cannot be left blank) 	
number out of 10 (the best paper has rank 1) __

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Overall Rating:* 	(pick one)
	Definitely accept
	Probably accept
	Borderline paper
	Probably reject
	Definitely reject

Description
For the sake of the authors and the quality of the reviewing process,
please explain your ratings in the space provided. Stress both the
positive and negative aspects of the paper to help the Area Chair to make the
final recommendation.

*Explanation (cannot be left blank):*








------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Confidence:
*Rating* (pick one)
	Very confident
	Confident
	Not confident

Description
By accepting a paper for review, the reviewer confirms his competence
in the required areas. He is thus expected to be quite confident in
his/her conclusions. "Confident" is therefore the default option. Use
the other options to stress that you are absolutely sure about your
conclusions (you are an expert in the respective area) or that you feel
some doubt (you are not an expert in the respective area, but you are
able to distinguish good work form a bad work in the respective area).
If you have serious doubts about your ability to assess the paper,
please inform the PC chairs.
 
*Explanation:*



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novelty:
*Rating*	(pick one)
	Very original
	Moderately original
	Minor originality
	Has been done before   (implies reject, justify thoroughly) 		

Description
This is the standard notion of novelty. "Very original" papers open 
new directions and often become seminal papers. The "Has been done 
before" must be accompanied by relevant references.

*Explanation:*







------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Importance / Relevance: 	
*Rating*	(pick one)
	Of broad interest
	Of sufficient interest
	Of limited interest
	Irrelevant or out of scope for ICCV (implies reject, justify thoroughly)

Description
Every researcher in CV should find interest in works "Of broad interest" 
for, e.g., a contribution in his field of interest, the technical 
quality of the work, or a surprising result. Such papers are clearly 
suitable for oral presentation. Works "Of sufficient interest" do not 
have to address everyone in the audience, but should have an impact in 
a certain area. Works "Of limited interest" should be considered for 
ECCV only if their novelty, clarity, and correctness is excellent.
 
*Explanation:*






------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to Prior Work: 	
*Rating* 	(pick one)
	Excellent reference to prior work
	References adequate
	References missing
	Does not cite relevant work (implies reject, justify thoroughly) 		

*Description*
A "Does not cite relevant" work strongly suggests reject. This option 
should be selected if the missing work is well known in the community 
and commonly cited, else we suggest giving the authors the benefit of 
the doubt by selecting "References missing".

*Explanation:*






------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Clarity of Presentation: 	
*Rating* 	(pick one)
	Reads very well
	Is clear enough
	Difficult to read
	Unreadable   (implies reject, justify thoroughly)

*Explanation:*




------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Technical Correctness: 	
*Rating*	(pick one)
	Definitely correct
	Probably correct, did not check completely
	Contains minor errors
	Has major problems (implies reject, justify thoroughly) 		

Description
The statement that a paper is "Technically correct" means that its conclusions 
are supported by flawless arguments. Proofs are correct, formulas are 
correct, there are no hidden assumptions, experiments are well designed 
and properly evaluated.

*Explanation:*






------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Validation: 	
*Rating*	(pick one)
	Sufficient experimental validation or a theoretical paper
	Limited but convincing
	Lacking in some respect
	Insufficient validation (implies reject, justify thoroughly) 		

Description
Different papers need different levels of experimental validation. A theoretical 
paper may need no experiments. A paper presenting a new idea might just need an
experiment illustrating that there exists a situation where the idea
applies. A paper presenting a new phenomenon or a performance evaluation
paper may need a thorough experiments and their evaluation. Selecting
"Insufficient validation" implies rejection and therefore it is the
right choice for papers that present claims that require a good
experimental evidence but do not provide it.
 
*Explanation:*






------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Additional comments to author(s):* 	

*Comments to committee:*
(to be withheld from authors) 	


*Reviewed by:* 	



------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of problems, send an e-mail to iccv@cs.rutgers.edu